Jump to content


Photo

Angular Unconformities


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 October 2016 - 03:20 PM

This is an interesting short (4 mins) video describing the angular conformity at Siccar Point, Scotland which in 1788 helped convince pioneer geologist James Hutton of the great age of the Earth.




Vertical layers of Silurian greywacke sandstone are overlain by horizontal layers of Devonian red sandstone. The mainstream account is that the Silurian sediment was laid down in an ancient sea, forming rock that was later uplifted and folded by tectonic activity as a mountain range formed. Thus exposed, this rock was eroded down before further earth movements lowered the layers and terrestrial sourced iron rich sands were deposited on top by lakes and rivers during the Devonian following a depositional hiatus of about 60 million years - thus the unconformity.

A layer of conglomerate divides the Silurian and Devonian strata - this is fragments of the older greywacke contained within the basal part of the red sandstone, which shows the erosional period before being buried by the red sands.

Nearby, fossilised ripple marks in vertical greywacke layers are visible.

 Attached File  764px-P005884.jpg   115.72KB   0 downloads
 

 

How does this formation form during a year long flood ?



#2 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 05 October 2016 - 05:06 PM

 

 

How does this formation form during a year long flood ?

 

Based on what I saw in the video, it argues MORE for a flood depositional model.  Did you notice how the EXPOSED Silurian greywacke (where waves are splashing over the layers) are standing at all sorts of levels...VERY jagged.  If you tried to pour sandy cement over them you would see the concrete filling in at all sorts of levels.  A side view would be like a lot of narrow "V's" stacked against each other.  But what is seen with the Devonian sandstone (in cross-section) is a very FLAT surface demarking the unconformity.  Yes there can be seen smaller bumps and valleys along the edge (maybe a few inches) but not the type of deep valleys seen in the fully exposed rock.  If there were MILLIONS OF YEARS of exposure, you would expect the line to not be so uniformly straight. 

 

I can't speak for other locations, but based on the video alone, the evidence is not very supportive of the AE view. 

 

Speaking of unconformity, why can the many hundreds of millions of years of deposition in the GC have so LITTLE evidence of having exposure to erosion before the next layer gets laid down?  They are almost perfectly horizontal for hundreds of miles.  And in some places, the layers, supposedly 10's of millions of years apart are INTERBEDDED.   Patton's video shows this...so if needed I could hunt this up.

 

Also, http://www.creations...efaction7.html(20% down page...tilted cross-bedded sandstone) shows some similar unconformities...which are VERY hard for AE to explain, IMO. 

 

BTW, the bits of breccia in the YOUNGER layer (seen at 1:15 in the vid) surely suggests something ground up the lower layer and mixed bits in with the higher/younger layer in very violent dynamic action.  Sand slowly sifting down onto the lower layer would NEVER cause this!  How would the bits get moved UP any?...especially any more than just the first foot or so above  the unconformity?  This is similar to the "transported block" seen at about 15% down the same page. 



#3 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 06 October 2016 - 02:58 PM

Based on what I saw in the video, it argues MORE for a flood depositional model.  Did you notice how the EXPOSED Silurian greywacke (where waves are splashing over the layers) are standing at all sorts of levels...VERY jagged.  If you tried to pour sandy cement over them you would see the concrete filling in at all sorts of levels.  A side view would be like a lot of narrow "V's" stacked against each other.  But what is seen with the Devonian sandstone (in cross-section) is a very FLAT surface demarking the unconformity.  Yes there can be seen smaller bumps and valleys along the edge (maybe a few inches) but not the type of deep valleys seen in the fully exposed rock.  If there were MILLIONS OF YEARS of exposure, you would expect the line to not be so uniformly straight.


Not really following your argument. The island of exposed greywacke behind will have been battered by the sea so of course could be any shape. Where the Devonian sandstone lies on top, the contacting greywacke has not yet been exposed to erosion.
 

I can't speak for other locations, but based on the video alone, the evidence is not very supportive of the AE view.


It is if you think about it objectively. If you think a YE view is more supported, then you need to explain how. You have to explain how you have enough time for the Silurian deposit to be hardened into rock in the first place. Then after uplift and folding, you need time to erode down the hard rock, then deposition of a deep layer of red sands (where's the source of this red sand at this point in the flood ??) and time for that to be compressed into rock too. Then time for further erosion to expose the greywacke again. All in one year ?

What do you make of the greywacke ripple marks ? Ripples in sand are formed in gently oscillating water, hardly the vision of the flood described in any account I've ever read. The picture shows more than one layer with ripples exposed, how were they formed ? Were there bouts of violent sediment flows interspersed with gently lapping waters ?
  

BTW, the bits of breccia in the YOUNGER layer (seen at 1:15 in the vid) surely suggests something ground up the lower layer and mixed bits in with the higher/younger layer in very violent dynamic action.  Sand slowly sifting down onto the lower layer would NEVER cause this!  How would the bits get moved UP any?...especially any more than just the first foot or so above  the unconformity?


Yes there was an erosional phase of the exposed greywacke initially before the strata was completely buried by red sands transported by rivers. So of course eroded fragments of greywacke would be mixed with sand in the basal layer of the Devonian sandstone.

 

I just want to discuss the Siccar Point geology first, before any diversification into stuff about other locations you might bring up.



#4 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 06 October 2016 - 05:52 PM

BTW, the bits of breccia in the YOUNGER layer (seen at 1:15 in the vid) surely suggests something ground up the lower layer and mixed bits in with the higher/younger layer in very violent dynamic action.  Sand slowly sifting down onto the lower layer would NEVER cause this!  How would the bits get moved UP any?...especially any more than just the first foot or so above  the unconformity?


W:Yes there was an erosional phase of the exposed greywacke initially before the strata was completely buried by red sands transported by rivers. So of course eroded fragments of greywacke would be mixed with sand in the basal layer of the Devonian sandstone.>>

 

If your AE view is that the older layer got tilted vertical, THEN got eroded (is that your view?) and then later it was back underwater during sand(stone) deposition, then you would expect this

 

 

Attached File  Silurian1.jpg   35.72KB   0 downloads

 

But instead it looks like this:

 

Attached File  Silurian2.jpg   19.56KB   0 downloads

 

The entire GC looks like this.  If there were millions of years erosion between the different horizons then it ought to look like the first one.

 

>>Where the Devonian sandstone lies on top, the contacting greywacke has not yet been exposed to erosion.>>

I don't get it.  How could it get uplifted and tilted to vertical and it NOT be exposed to erosion?  And if it was always underwater, then how could the Devonian layer get added on the top AND have bits of breccia from below within it?  As soon as the first few inches of DS gets added then it blocks any of the bits from the SG from being mixed into the DS. 

 

This is Brown's position about ripple marks:  LINK

 

The hydroplate theory, supported by hundreds of other evidences, easily explains ripples on the Continental Divide. Sediments, eroded by the escaping subterranean waters during the flood, were quickly deposited through those waters. On the continents, those deposits average more than a mile in thickness. Liquefaction sorted most of them into the prominent layers we see today, and fluttering hydroplates produced gigantic waves, causing ripples even on the deep seafloor. The compression event buckled, crushed, and lifted the Rocky Mountains within an hour. (That lifting of the seafloor up through the water also caused a powerful, ripple-producing flow.) Prior to the flood, supercritical water in the subterranean chambers dissolved and uniformly spread cementing agents, such as silica and calcium carbonate, throughout the water. Months and years after the flood, the warm flood waters cooled, so those minerals came out of solution, lodged as precipitated solids (or cement) in the tiniest spaces between sedimentary grains. What were the forces, energy, and mechanism that produced ripples on the Continental Divide?  Gravity, the kinetic energy of massive hydroplates sliding downhill, and buckling.

 

I suppose the question for YOU is where can such extensive ripple marks on the bottom of the ocean floor be seen today?  Brown has a suggested answer...what is yours?  I just read wiki's wacky suggestion...submarine landslides.  RIGHT.  And exactly WHERE ON THE PLANET can you find any underwater sediments being laid down today that look anything at all like greywacke???

 

220px-Feldspathic-wacke.jpg



#5 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 07 October 2016 - 02:11 PM

W:Yes there was an erosional phase of the exposed greywacke initially before the strata was completely buried by red sands transported by rivers. So of course eroded fragments of greywacke would be mixed with sand in the basal layer of the Devonian sandstone.>>
If your AE view is that the older layer got tilted vertical, THEN got eroded (is that your view?) and then later it was back underwater during sand(stone) deposition, then you would expect this
 
 
attachicon.gifSilurian1.jpg
 
But instead it looks like this:
 
attachicon.gifSilurian2.jpg

 
 Why would it have narrow teeth like contours like that ? If your schematic is meant to portray local topography of small hills and valleys then exactly that is seen at Siccar Point. The wavecut platform seen in the video is at a lower position than the divide between the greywacke and red sandstone in the nearby cliff face. This is an example of palaeotopography. There is a lack of breccia in the cliff face unconformity which indicates that eroded greywacke rubble was deposited in the valley which is the location of the section shown in the video.
 

>>Where the Devonian sandstone lies on top, the contacting greywacke has not yet been exposed to erosion.>>

I don't get it. How could it get uplifted and tilted to vertical and it NOT be exposed to erosion?


It was when it was first uplifted. I was referring to the greywacke where not exposed due to erosion of overlying red sandstone today. So the completely exposed greywacke being splashed over that you referred to has been subject to wave action and is therefore more jagged.
 

This is Brown's position about ripple marks:  LINK
 
The hydroplate theory, supported by hundreds of other evidences, easily explains ripples on the Continental Divide. Sediments, eroded by the escaping subterranean waters during the flood, were quickly deposited through those waters. On the continents, those deposits average more than a mile in thickness. Liquefaction sorted most of them into the prominent layers we see today, and fluttering hydroplates produced gigantic waves, causing ripples even on the deep seafloor. The compression event buckled, crushed, and lifted the Rocky Mountains within an hour. (That lifting of the seafloor up through the water also caused a powerful, ripple-producing flow.) Prior to the flood, supercritical water in the subterranean chambers dissolved and uniformly spread cementing agents, such as silica and calcium carbonate, throughout the water. Months and years after the flood, the warm flood waters cooled, so those minerals came out of solution, lodged as precipitated solids (or cement) in the tiniest spaces between sedimentary grains. What were the forces, energy, and mechanism that produced ripples on the Continental Divide?  Gravity, the kinetic energy of massive hydroplates sliding downhill, and buckling.


Indy, Hydroplate "theory" is fantasy. Love the way he glibly states his story "easily explains" ripples. It does no such thing. He states the ripples were "obviously made by water flowing rapidly". Have you ever seen such ripple marks formed by fast flowing water ? Doesn't happen. I've lived near the sea all my life and they are never formed when the sea is rough, only in benign conditions in subtidal areas when the waves are gently lapping.

 

I suppose the question for YOU is where can such extensive ripple marks on the bottom of the ocean floor be seen today?  Brown has a suggested answer...what is yours?  I just read wiki's wacky suggestion...submarine landslides.  RIGHT.


Brown's answer relies on a completely fabricated idea of hydroplates and I don't see how that kind of violent action would produce dainty little ripple marks on the ocean floor.

Ripples can and do form in deep sea environments as stated in the abstract of this paper.
 
I haven't read the wiki page you refer to but I presume it is referring to sediment slipping down continental shelves and covering ocean floor ripple marks. What's wacky (greywacky?) about that ? The greywacke at Siccar Point is composed of alternating softer mudstone with harder sandstone layers, something your flood wouldn't achieve would it ? On the other hand a slowly accumulating muddy ocean floor periodically covered by sand slippage is certainly not a "wacky" scenario.

Now, how do you get the ripples to remain preserved when your recently laid sediment is violently tilted in a vertical direction. There would be no trace of ripples because it would all slump don't you think ? How would you even get ripple marks as this sediment was continuously deposited after your underground chambers erupted ?

 

Are you going to give me an account of how the geology of Siccar Point was produced under a Flood scenario or will you accept it can't be explained under your model ?



#6 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 October 2016 - 02:42 PM

I am having trouble even understanding what the site is really like and what you have described seems quite different than what I saw in the video so I have little interest in studying more on this at this time. The time and effort I have put into it in my first post was pretty much brushed aside and that doesn't encourage me to want to do much more effort. Maybe there will be some others who want to discuss this with you.

#7 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 07 October 2016 - 03:21 PM

That's fine, you don't have to continue with this. Though the cynic in me makes me think you know that your model is hopelessly insufficient to account for the observations at Siccar Point.

Also don't know why you think I've "brushed aside" your post. I've given detailed answers.

Anyone else ?

#8 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 October 2016 - 09:43 PM

Also don't know why you think I've "brushed aside" your post. I've given detailed answers.

I spent a lot of time to prepare the drawings to show you and readers why your interpretation of that geology cannot be correct. The jagged vertical strata would be formed by erosion if that strata is exposed before the sandstone above it is deposited. That would cause the sand to filter down through the vertical gaps like I showed in my first drawing. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE SEE. It would not be just that way after the surface is again exposed to waves like it is today. It would have similar gaps millions of years previously when it was exposed and before the sandstone was laid down. You also just brushed aside the fact that there are bits of the Graywacke strata that is mixed in with the sandstone above it and that indicates that they were in dynamic interaction which is what Brown describes. Your own interpretation has no way to explain that. You haven't even tried. You also did not get the point about ripple marks being formed supposedly by submarine landslides. That is not just to cover up ripple marks...it is what they suggest is needed to produce the kinds of strong currents at the bottom of the sea bed in order to produce ripple marks. They are not described as being formed in shallow almost calm waters at all. They are supposed to have been formed at the bottom of the ocean and in order to do that you need a strong deep water current, and there is no such thing today. Except I suppose if there were a landslide which would cause strong currents. You simply brush aside the comments without even taking time to understand the point I'm making and so it makes me hesitant to want to delve into this. Maybe someone else will.

#9 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 October 2016 - 08:34 AM

I spent a lot of time to prepare the drawings to show you and readers why your interpretation of that geology cannot be correct. The jagged vertical strata would be formed by erosion if that strata is exposed before the sandstone above it is deposited. That would cause the sand to filter down through the vertical gaps like I showed in my first drawing. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE SEE.


Please try to look at the video with an unbiased mind. The exposed rocks behind are nothing like as jagged as your diagram and the top surface of the Greywacke rock where still beneath Red Sandstone does intrude in places into the above layer, that is even pointed out in the video at the 3 minute mark.
 

You also just brushed aside the fact that there are bits of the Graywacke strata that is mixed in with the sandstone above it and that indicates that they were in dynamic interaction which is what Brown describes. Your own interpretation has no way to explain that. You haven't even tried.


What are you talking about ? I mentioned the fragments of Greywacke in the first post. In the early period of red sandstone deposition rivers would have eroded the exposed Greywacke and therefore mixed in with the sand. In time, presumably as the gradient was lessened, only sand was deposited and built the overlying thick layers.

There are rounded and angular fragments of greywacke in the basal sandstone. Your flood couldn't produce the rounded ones, this takes a long time in a river to be jostled about enough to smooth off all sharp edges. In any case, you wouldn't even have hard rock to erode in the first place, the sediment would still be soft.
 

You also did not get the point about ripple marks being formed supposedly by submarine landslides. That is not just to cover up ripple marks...it is what they suggest is needed to produce the kinds of strong currents at the bottom of the sea bed in order to produce ripple marks. They are not described as being formed in shallow almost calm waters at all. They are supposed to have been formed at the bottom of the ocean and in order to do that you need a strong deep water current, and there is no such thing today.


So you've completely ignored the link that provides observations of just the opposite ?? That sediment ripples do indeed form in the deep sea.

Anyway, lets see if someone else can come up with a plausible way this geology could be produced by a one year global flood because you haven't even attempted one.

CMI have an article  about it but unsurprisingly don't even mention the basal layer conglomerate and ripple marks which destroy their story.



#10 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 09 October 2016 - 02:52 PM

I understand that my diagram may exaggerate the jagged nature.  However those exposed vertical layers in the video ARE JAGGED. 

 

ME:I don't get it. How could it get uplifted and tilted to vertical and it NOT be exposed to erosion?
W:  It was when it was first uplifted. I was referring to the greywacke where not exposed due to erosion of overlying red sandstone today.>>

 

Now you admit that those layers WOULD be eroded BEFORE the sandstone was deposited millions of years later.  SO IF IT WERE, then we WOULD expect to see the jaggedness everywhere, BUT IT IS NOT THERE.  The horizon is FLAT.

 

And you still haven't sufficiently addressed how the bits of the greywacke layer could have gotten mixed in at LEAST several meters above the horizon.  The process YOU think happened would have left the lower stuff all down BELOW that horizon. 

 

>>and the top surface of the Greywacke rock where still beneath Red Sandstone does intrude in places into the above layer, that is even pointed out in the video at the 3 minute mark.>>

I looked again at that part and all I saw was slight bumps along the horizon.  There is NOTHING like the jagged erosion that is seen where the Greywacke is exposed to erosion.  My argument still stands.  And besides this is not about any of the GW intruding a bit into the upper layer.  It is about why the upper layer (sandstone) does not intrude into the lower layer AT ALL in between the jagged and eroded parts which SHOULD be there if they were exposed for millions of years before that layer subsided.  It does NOT.  But it SHOULD. 

 

>>There are rounded and angular fragments of greywacke in the basal sandstone. Your flood couldn't produce the rounded ones, this takes a long time in a river to be jostled about enough to smooth off all sharp edges.>>

Lots of jostling would happen in Brown's flood model...for SURE.  It would be like river jostling on steroids.  And from what I have read, NO ONE says that the GW material was from rivers!  They all say it was MARINE stuff.  So how do you get all that jostling at the bottom of the ocean???  As for the ripples, here is what that CMI article said:

 

He did not know that the lower Silurian rocks were turbidite beds, deposited rapidly from underwater density currents that sped across the ocean floor as fast as 100 km (60 miles) per hour.4 Neither did he know the upper strata were of a terrestrial origin, deposited from a vast expanse of fast flowing water that covered a large part of the continent, depositing thick, cross-bedded strata.5,6

 

One has to stand on his head to try to imagine what sort of action at the bottom of the ocean could cause the sorting and also the ripple marks seen at Siccar Point.  To try to suggest it was due to some submarine landslide is preposterous.  Where is the material that would have come from that landslide???



#11 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 22 October 2016 - 04:24 PM

>>and the top surface of the Greywacke rock where still beneath Red Sandstone does intrude in places into the above layer, that is even pointed out in the video at the 3 minute mark.>>

I looked again at that part and all I saw was slight bumps along the horizon.  There is NOTHING like the jagged erosion that is seen where the Greywacke is exposed to erosion.  My argument still stands.


The Devonian sandstone was laid down in a fluvial environment. Rivers generally don't produce jagged erosion from bedrock like you see in a coastal environment.   
 

>>There are rounded and angular fragments of greywacke in the basal sandstone. Your flood couldn't produce the rounded ones, this takes a long time in a river to be jostled about enough to smooth off all sharp edges.>>

Lots of jostling would happen in Brown's flood model...for SURE.  It would be like river jostling on steroids.


Yep, all smashed up angular fragments. Only the gentle long term jostling of a river (or waves on the coast) will produce rounded pebbles. I would imagine a flood of your scale would result in a conglomerate *somewhat* thicker than a couple of metres anyway.
 

And from what I have read, NO ONE says that the GW material was from rivers!  They all say it was MARINE stuff.  So how do you get all that jostling at the bottom of the ocean???


You misunderstand. The erosion of the greywacke took place after it was uplifted by the Caledonian orogeny (plate tectonics that raised the Scottish mountains and the Appalachians in the US - this was before the Atlantic formed). At a later stage in the Devonian, rivers flowed across the eroded bedrock and laid down the sandstone. There was no jostling required at the bottom of the ocean.

 

I still haven't seen any plausible way your flood creates the angular conformity at Siccar Point. I appreciate Indy's efforts with his responses but does anyone else have any idea because the silence is quite revealing. Same with the chalk thread pretty much.



#12 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 24 October 2016 - 04:26 PM

How wide do you figure those rivers were and how fast were they? Although I have not checked it, my guess is that layer of red sandstone is much wider and broader than a typical river.

#13 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 24 October 2016 - 04:29 PM

>>The Devonian sandstone was laid down in a fluvial environment. Rivers generally don't produce jagged erosion from bedrock like you see in a coastal environment. <<

I am not even saying it would be coastal. But if it was exposed to the air or even rivers for any substantial length of time you would see evidence of that erosion. But instead there is a flat horizon between the two.

#14 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 October 2016 - 01:38 PM

How wide do you figure those rivers were and how fast were they? Although I have not checked it, my guess is that layer of red sandstone is much wider and broader than a typical river.

 

Having read a bit more about it, I'm not sure if the sandstone at the specific location of Siccar Point was laid down by a river actually. The land that became Scotland was south of the equator in the Devonian in a semi arid environment with wet and dry seasons. Erosion of mountains to the north east supplied the red sands which were transported by braided river systems and blown around as sand dunes. Today, the remaining sandstone outcrops in several areas in southern Scotland and northernmost England.

 

>>The Devonian sandstone was laid down in a fluvial environment. Rivers generally don't produce jagged erosion from bedrock like you see in a coastal environment. <<

I am not even saying it would be coastal. But if it was exposed to the air or even rivers for any substantial length of time you would see evidence of that erosion. But instead there is a flat horizon between the two.

 

But there isn't a flat horizon. Here's another image of the boundary.

 

Attached File  boundary.jpg   21.8KB   0 downloads

 

Here's a sequence to show the geological processes that led to the unconformity at Siccar Point.

 

Attached File  siccar point.jpg   22.25KB   0 downloads

 

Both the above images are from this summary from the Edinburgh Geological Society which is well worth you reading if you are still unclear about what the site reveals.

 

Do you still think the site is more supportive of your Flood model ? If so, why ?

 

Any other creationist have anything to say ?



#15 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 25 October 2016 - 04:54 PM

W>>The land that became Scotland was south of the equator in the Devonian in a semi arid environment with wet and dry seasons. Erosion of mountains to the north east supplied the red sands which were transported by braided river systems and blown around as sand dunes.>>

Sure seems contrived.  How would they REALLY know ANY of that?  It all is based on lots of assumptions.  That river idea seemed pretty iffy to me.  They may have chosen the aerial deposition idea because the water deposition calls for too fast a current, which may imply a fast river, BUT the layer is too expansive for that. 

 

If others aren't wanting to discuss it, I'm nearing the end of my interest, especially if you won't let me bring in stuff like the GC evidence which poses problems for YOUR view.  I don't care to dig deeply into this formation all that much.  I have no idea if the diagrams shown give us the real picture or if they gloss over problematic details.  I have my skeptical eye just like you have for diagrams any creationist might create. 



#16 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 26 October 2016 - 01:49 PM

W>>The land that became Scotland was south of the equator in the Devonian in a semi arid environment with wet and dry seasons. Erosion of mountains to the north east supplied the red sands which were transported by braided river systems and blown around as sand dunes.>>

Sure seems contrived. How would they REALLY know ANY of that? It all is based on lots of assumptions.


The old creationist mantra of assumptions. You don’t seem to mind adhering to your hydroplate belief which is a complete and uttercontrivance.

No, it’s based on the evidence of palaeomagnetic data for the latitude and sedimentological studies for the climate. We know it was a terrestrial/freshwater environment because of the lack of marine fossils. Fossils are patchily distributed but include the freshwater fish Bothriolepis hicklingi and some vascular plants.
 

If others aren't wanting to discuss it, I'm nearing the end of my interest, especially if you won't let me bring in stuff like the GC evidence which poses problems for YOUR view. I don't care to dig deeply into this formation all that much. I have no idea if the diagrams shown give us the real picture or if they gloss over problematic details. I have my skeptical eye just like you have for diagrams any creationist might create.


I smell a cop out. At least you alone have made some sort of effort (even though you haven’t even attempted to address how the unconformity is explained under your model). I don’t see ‘evolutionists’ blanket avoiding any subjects on here.

I’m not going to divert off to the Grand Canyon but feel free to start a new topic. Some food for thought though for you – you say the flat, sharply divided layers are a problem for us. How on earth would you get sharply defined layers under a global flood scenario ? If all the sediment gets settled in less than a year why wouldn’t the layers just grade into one other ?



#17 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 November 2016 - 03:36 PM

Do you still think the site is more supportive of your Flood model ? If so, why ?
 
Any other creationist have anything to say ?


Absolutely nothing. So does the silence indicate that the biblical flood story can not in any way account for the unconformity at Siccar Point and is therefore falsified ?



#18 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 09 November 2016 - 11:12 AM

Absolutely nothing. So does the silence indicate that the biblical flood story can not in any way account for the unconformity at Siccar Point and is therefore falsified ?

You apparently want to only remain on the attack and you will not allow yourself to also have to defend your position. I wanted to include other places besides this one in England for your own model to have to defend but you have precluded that. You should try to at least read through Brown's hydroplate Theory to understand the model. Not all creationists accept that but it has very good explanations for most of the features that you think are incompatible with a flood model.

>>How on earth would you get sharply defined layers under a global flood scenario ? If all the sediment gets settled in less than a year why wouldn’t the layers just grade into one other ?<

Part of that involves the flow of waves of sediment over land, but much of it involves the sorting process that would happen underwater and within layers of liquefaction. The distinct lines between layers can also have a partial explanation in decompression event where both layers are ground flat with some of their material being mixed between them such as we see at Siccar point. Much of your difficulty comes from having a very simplistic idea about what happens during the dynamic processes of this flood.

#19 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 09 November 2016 - 03:46 PM

You apparently want to only remain on the attack and you will not allow yourself to also have to defend your position. I wanted to include other places besides this one in England for your own model to have to defend but you have precluded that.


This thread is about angular unconformities, in particular the excellent example at Siccar Point (which is in Scotland by the way, not England). I've laid out how it formed according to the mainstream view and answered your objections to it. I have not heard anything from you or any other creationist as to how this geological feature can be explained by a year long flood. That is because there is no sensible explanation.

 

You should try to at least read through Brown's hydroplate Theory to understand the model. Not all creationists accept that but it has very good explanations for most of the features that you think are incompatible with a flood model.


I haven't read his book but I've read overviews of his 'theory' on creationist websites. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how he explains a feature like Siccar Point ?
 

>>How on earth would you get sharply defined layers under a global flood scenario ? If all the sediment gets settled in less than a year why wouldn’t the layers just grade into one other ?<

Part of that involves the flow of waves of sediment over land, but much of it involves the sorting process that would happen underwater and within layers of liquefaction. The distinct lines between layers can also have a partial explanation in decompression event where both layers are ground flat with some of their material being mixed between them such as we see at Siccar point. Much of your difficulty comes from having a very simplistic idea about what happens during the dynamic processes of this flood.


This explanation is nowhere near plausible. You would not get sharply divided sandstone/mudstone/limestone etc. layers as a result of these supposed events. But I'm not going to get sidetracked on this separate topic.



#20 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 09 November 2016 - 09:48 PM

I gave you my reasons why your explanation does not fit. We have had some exchanges about that and neither of us made any good headway. I know very little about that site and don't particularly want to delve into it enough to try to give a solid opinion about how it formed. But the general idea of how the various distinct layers of the sedimentary column could be formed is something I am open to discussing but you don't want to. I would ask if you choose to discuss it, that you at least scan through the chapters relevant to it in Brown's book which is available online free. Instead of having this simplistic homogenized idea of what you think a flood would be like you should consider a more sophisticated and detailed model. But I suppose it depends on whether you prefer hacking away at the strawman that you build.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users