Jump to content


Photo

Angular Unconformities


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 10 November 2016 - 12:08 PM

I gave you my reasons why your explanation does not fit.


You gave reasons but I have shown them to be without substance.
 

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.


If the flood model has any worth then it must have a plausible explanation for this famous geological feature. If you truly wanted to test whether your stance on the history of the earth is true then you would not avoid these subjects. The silence from your side on this speaks volumes.
 

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.


We can maybe move on to other geological features more to your liking if you accept that mainstream geology far better explains angular unconformities than biblical flood geology.



#22 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 November 2016 - 05:36 PM

 


We can maybe move on to other geological features more to your liking if you accept that mainstream geology far better explains angular unconformities than biblical flood geology.

 

No of course I don't.  All Siccar Point seems to show is that there are folded/vertical layers which are later covered by horizontal layers.  Is there much more than that indicated?  OF COURSE Brown (and all YE's) know there are such, and that they therefore must explain those.  Brown certainly does.  Folding features is one of the reasons to ACCEPT rapid deposition of the layers and a dynamic and rapid event that folded them before they hardened.  Brittle rocks don't fold...especially if they are at the top, on the surface when they get folded (as you believe at Siccar).  AND they don't stay exposed for millions of years without having MUCHO erosion, which then would be evident later after another layer was superimposed.  Those sediments would filter down into the erosion channels, just as my drawing depicted.  And later when both layers were seen in cross-section, you would not see such a FLAT horizon between the layers.  It would be jagged. 

 

This image from Brown's book shows what I referred to...how the compression event would grind away even tilted or vertical layers so that the horizon is perfectly flat.  Conventional geology has LAME explanations for this.

 

liquefaction-grand_canyon_cross_section.

 

BTW, that quartzite block is similar to the chunks of Greywacky inside the red sandstone layer.  Only it is MASSIVE and no erosional force could move it.  Here's a close up of that.

 

liquefaction-quartzite_block_sean&ryan.j

 

Here are more similar shapes to Siccar.

 

hydroplateoverview-folded_mountain.jpg

Figure 49: Buckled Mountain. Textbooks and museums frequently refer to some uplifting force that formed mountains. Can you see that an uplifting force, by itself, would not produce this pattern? Horizontal compression was needed to buckle these sedimentary layers near the Sullivan River in southern British Columbia, Canada. Such layers—seen worldwide—must have been soft, like wet sand, at the time of compression.  Today, surface rocks are brittle.



#23 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 11 November 2016 - 04:43 PM

No of course I don't.  All Siccar Point seems to show is that there are folded/vertical layers which are later covered by horizontal layers.  Is there much more than that indicated?  OF COURSE Brown (and all YE's) know there are such, and that they therefore must explain those.  Brown certainly does.  Folding features is one of the reasons to ACCEPT rapid deposition of the layers and a dynamic and rapid event that folded them before they hardened.  Brittle rocks don't fold...especially if they are at the top, on the surface when they get folded (as you believe at Siccar).


Sedimentary rocks do fold when deformed slowly by immense pressures deep underground. This has been known experimentally for many decades e.g. this paper. And no I haven't said that the rocks at Siccar Point folded when they were on the surface, that's your strawman. Obviously they were deep underground when this happened and subsequently were exposed after millions of years of erosion before the horizontal red sandstone layers were deposited on top.

You're crazy if you think Brown's hydroplates can account for this (which are a complete invention in the first place). So your granite hydroplates smash in and fold the greywacke layers without obliterating them into a homogenized mess and then what ? The tops of the folds get shaved off by sliding rock ? How is the greywacke beneath already lithified at this stage in the flood to allow bits of breccia to be broken off to form the conglomerate boundary layer ? Does the sliding rock get miraculously removed to allow red sand (where does this come from anyway ?) to be deposited on top ? How does the sand then get lithified ? If it was a sufficiently thick layer to allow lithification how has there been enough time under your model since the flood for it to be eroded away to the thickness it is now at Siccar Point ? I could go on.
 

AND they don't stay exposed for millions of years without having MUCHO erosion, which then would be evident later after another layer was superimposed.  Those sediments would filter down into the erosion channels, just as my drawing depicted.  And later when both layers were seen in cross-section, you would not see such a FLAT horizon between the layers.  It would be jagged.


The horizon is not flat, it is uneven over the few metres of section shown in the video, you're really clutching at straws with this argument. Does every exposed rock surface have to be markedly jagged like your diagram ? Besides, I've already explained to you that further back in the cliff face the sandstone is at a completely different height giving an example of palaeotopography. So the local sandstone layer is far from flat.
 

This image from Brown's book shows what I referred to...how the compression event would grind away even tilted or vertical layers so that the horizon is perfectly flat.  Conventional geology has LAME explanations for this.


That diagram doesn't seem to explain anything. Its just a diagram.
 

Here are more similar shapes to Siccar.
 
hydroplateoverview-folded_mountain.jpg
Figure 49: Buckled Mountain. Textbooks and museums frequently refer to some uplifting force that formed mountains. Can you see that an uplifting force, by itself, would not produce this pattern? Horizontal compression was needed to buckle these sedimentary layers near the Sullivan River in southern British Columbia, Canada. Such layers—seen worldwide—must have been soft, like wet sand, at the time of compression.  Today, surface rocks are brittle.


So how did these soft folded layers lithify under your model ? Is it your magic quick drying cement again that you used for dinosaur and human prints while Brown's extreme rain was pelting down ? How did these folds harden so quickly and not just slump into an incoherent mound ?



#24 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 03 December 2016 - 03:56 PM

I take it from the silence from the YE side that the flood model fails completely with an explanation of this evidence at Siccar Point which forced scientists in the 18th Century into realizing that the Earth is very, very old ...



#25 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 03 December 2016 - 04:27 PM

I take it from the silence from the YE side that the flood model fails completely with an explanation of this evidence at Siccar Point which forced scientists in the 18th Century into realizing that the Earth is very, very old ...

 

What a pretentious bump. Have you not read rule #10? The only thing you can take from the fact that nobody is posting in this thread...is the fact that nobody currently posting has any interest in pursuing this topic or the time to debate it.



#26 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 03 December 2016 - 09:20 PM

To BD... Wibble made the same kind of comments a while back and so I replied to him again when I was pretty much finished just so he would know that there are some who do not feel he has made his point successfully. I have showed that this location as well as places like the Grand Canyon do not fit well with the idea that the upper layer was exposed for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited. We should see significant erosion channels between each horizon but they are not there. If this location were exposed to erosion there would not be a flat and almost perfectly horizontal surface between the greywacke and the layer above it. I have said about all I want to say about this particular location so if others are not interested in adding their comments then this topic should die like so many other topics often do.

#27 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2016 - 02:48 PM

What a pretentious bump. Have you not read rule #10? The only thing you can take from the fact that nobody is posting in this thread...is the fact that nobody currently posting has any interest in pursuing this topic or the time to debate it.

 

Well that rule reads to me as saying that a particular member should not be badgered for a reply (like for example that Indy has done to Piasan in the hydroplates and meteorites thread). My last post was three weeks ago and I was trying to encourage a response from any YEC, I've already told Indy that he need not reply further. (admittedly there seems to be very few active YE members these days)



#28 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2016 - 03:04 PM

To BD... Wibble made the same kind of comments a while back and so I replied to him again when I was pretty much finished just so he would know that there are some who do not feel he has made his point successfully. I have showed that this location as well as places like the Grand Canyon do not fit well with the idea that the upper layer was exposed for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited. We should see significant erosion channels between each horizon but they are not there. If this location were exposed to erosion there would not be a flat and almost perfectly horizontal surface between the greywacke and the layer above it. I have said about all I want to say about this particular location so if others are not interested in adding their comments then this topic should die like so many other topics often do.

 

How many times do I have to point out to you that the greywacke layer is not flat. As I have said at least twice, the layer is located at a much higher position in the cliff behind compared to the shore section described in the video. So before the red sandstone was laid the cliff greywacke was a hill and the shore was a valley that had been eroded. There is no conglomerate boundary layer in the cliff section while there is in the valley section because naturally that's where eroded rubble would accumulate. Further, your model would not produce any greywacke rubble because the layer would still have to be soft under your scenario.

 

Its fine if you no longer want to participate in this thread but please don't distort the facts.



#29 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 09 December 2016 - 05:35 PM

How many times do I have to point out to you that the greywacke layer is not flat.

 

By "flat" I don't mean perfectly parallel to Earth's horizon.  I just mean the two surfaces do not jump up and down as you would expect if the bottom layer were exposed to erosion at the surface for a long time before the top layer is laid.  (Is that what you think is true?)  The HPT model would say both layers were deposited at nearly the same time so that fits well with a flat surface between them.  That does not mean that the whole formation or group may not have been tilted or raised during the processes of the flood and post-flood. 

 

This discussion really deserves to be widened beyond just this one formation, to include the Grand Canyon as well.  I'm not sure I'd want to discuss this a lot in either case, but I'd be more likely to if it was not confined only to Siccar. 



#30 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 December 2016 - 03:02 PM

W>>There is no conglomerate boundary layer in the cliff section while there is in the valley section because naturally that's where eroded rubble would accumulate. <<


Please explain how these pieces of conglomerate would be elevated and suspended in midair while the first several metres of the sandstone in the upper layer was laid down. You probably are going to say there was horizontal movement of the Sandstone flow which picked up pieces of the conglomerate greywacke material and mixed it in with the sandstone sediment. And that this occurred in the lower level but did not occur higher up in the cliff.

Well my explanation is almost the same except that the horizontal flow happened fast and there wasn't time between the two layers. Or not much. Certainly not a million years because we know that based on the fact that there is no erosion at the horizon between the two layers as we would expect if the lower layer had been exposed at the surface for many millennia.

#31 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2016 - 04:54 PM

Indy, how was there any greywacke rubble at all under your model. All your layers are still soft and pliable.



#32 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 December 2016 - 05:13 PM

After the lower GW layer was laid down, it could have begun its hardening process even while underwater (or if it was a sediment flow encroaching onto land areas during the rising portion of the flood.  Even if no hardening happens, then when the next flow (pre-sandstone) comes in if it moves horizontally, then it is not hard at all to imagine that the soft (or partially hardened) GW conglomerate pieces could get mixed in.  It's hard to imagine they would NOT.  And wiki says the pieces are 85% and only 15% matrix so you'd see virtually all pieces and very little matrix could be distinguished.

 

Now, before I write more about Siccar, are you willing to broaden this (perhaps to include the GC), or should we just shut this down?  Don't pretend that no YE has answered you...I HAVE, although you may not LIKE my answers. 



#33 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 10 December 2016 - 05:38 PM

After the lower GW layer was laid down, it could have begun its hardening process even while underwater (or if it was a sediment flow encroaching onto land areas during the rising portion of the flood.  Even if no hardening happens, then when the next flow (pre-sandstone) comes in if it moves horizontally, then it is not hard at all to imagine that the soft (or partially hardened) GW conglomerate pieces could get mixed in.  It's hard to imagine they would NOT.  And wiki says the pieces are 85% and only 15% matrix so you'd see virtually all pieces and very little matrix could be distinguished.


Its hard to comprehend how you think sediment would harden into rock under water and under very little compression, especially in such a short time. Can you give any example of this happening in real life ? 
 

Now, before I write more about Siccar, are you willing to broaden this (perhaps to include the GC), or should we just shut this down?  Don't pretend that no YE has answered you...I HAVE, although you may not LIKE my answers.


I am willing to widen this discussion. But you haven't given me any satisfaction with your answers so far and I don't think you are properly facing up to the facts here. However, I give you credit for actually having a go because nobody else has stepped up.



#34 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 11 December 2016 - 03:51 PM

Your main argument has been that there is a flat horizon between the basal eroded greywacke layer (the vertically tilted strata) and the overlying horizontal red sandstone and that this is very different to what you say is the jagged nature of the greywacke where fully exposed, as seen in the video in the OP. I have argued that the horizon is not actually flat and you have agreed to an extent, while still insisting there is a marked contrast in the degree of 'jaggedness'.

 

There is not actually that much of a difference. Below is a previous picture I've posted of the greywacke/sandstone boundary and for comparison a screenshot from the video (vertical strata of greywacke in the background in the sea)

 

Attached File  boundary.jpg   21.8KB   0 downloads

 

Attached File  Siccar screenshot.jpg   87.5KB   0 downloads

 

Looks similarly jagged to me.

 

Also, I've mentioned the very different height of the boundary in the cliff behind (indicating an ancient hill before deposition of sandstone) I think four times now and you've completely ignored it every time.



#35 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 12 December 2016 - 10:06 PM

Your main argument has been that there is a flat horizon between the basal eroded greywacke layer (the vertically tilted strata) and the overlying horizontal red sandstone and that this is very different to what you say is the jagged nature of the greywacke where fully exposed, as seen in the video in the OP.

 

 

That is pretty much it.  The lower jagged stuff informs or at least is ILLUSTRATIVE about what the upper surface of that type of rock would look like after being massively altered by erosive forces.  We don't NEED to see the lower layer to know that, however.  It is plain common sense.  Something as friable as the GW is going to NOT look as flat as the layers seen above.

 

>>Also, I've mentioned the very different height of the boundary in the cliff behind (indicating an ancient hill before deposition of sandstone) I think four times now and you've completely ignored it every time.>>

 

Sorry...I've been ambivalent about continuing to post here so I wasn't too sure I wanted to try to address that.  Is it your claim that you could have a hill made up of GW, then a bunch of pre-sandstone slurry washes in over the GW layer which was A HILL and was the topmost layer for a while...but the horizon between the layers would be flat and NON-jagged?  How does a hill get buried in slurry and you have such flatness?  I just have trouble picturing that.  I picture the slurry filling two valleys on either side of the hill and steep slopes that can be seen.  And the lower layer would NOT be non-jagged, even IF it were in the form of a hill. 

 

WAITAMINUTE...did you say I IGNORED you???  Thems fightin' words!



#36 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 13 December 2016 - 03:45 PM

That is pretty much it.  The lower jagged stuff informs or at least is ILLUSTRATIVE about what the upper surface of that type of rock would look like after being massively altered by erosive forces.  We don't NEED to see the lower layer to know that, however.  It is plain common sense.  Something as friable as the GW is going to NOT look as flat as the layers seen above.


And the 'lower jagged stuff' is similarly eroded where exposed compared to where still overlain by sandstone (as shown in the pics above). Do you now agree with this because this has been your main argument.
 

>>Also, I've mentioned the very different height of the boundary in the cliff behind (indicating an ancient hill before deposition of sandstone) I think four times now and you've completely ignored it every time.>>
 
Sorry...I've been ambivalent about continuing to post here so I wasn't too sure I wanted to try to address that.  Is it your claim that you could have a hill made up of GW, then a bunch of pre-sandstone slurry washes in over the GW layer which was A HILL and was the topmost layer for a while...but the horizon between the layers would be flat and NON-jagged?


The valley would obviously gradually fill with sand first - either wind blown or carried by rivers. The hill top would be covered last as the land slowly subsided. I haven't said the horizon between the layers would be flat and non jagged, where'd you get that from ? What I have said is that the conglomerate boundary layer is only present where the valley would have been, and is not present where the hilltop was. (clearly scree would collect in the valley not on the hilltop)
 

WAITAMINUTE...did you say I IGNORED you???  Thems fightin' words!


Something else you've ignored is the conglomerate that I just mentioned again. Please can you tell me how, under your rapid flood and hydroplate event, hard blocks of greywacke are available to be eroded off the basal layer to be incorporated into the sandstone ? Your sediment is supposed to be soft and pliable, not hard to enable fragments to be chipped off with the rapid arrival of the sandstone. And where did this red sand spring from ?



#37 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 13 December 2016 - 10:33 PM

W>>And the 'lower jagged stuff' is similarly eroded where exposed compared to where still overlain by sandstone (as shown in the pics above). Do you now agree with this because this has been your main argument.<<

I can't answer that because I just don't understand what you are trying to say. I have said it in my own words many times but I'll try again. I think your view is that the greywacke was at the surface for at least many thousand years before it was later covered by the sandstone...is that right? It may not have looked exactly like what is seen along the shore today with deep jagged crevices, but it would be very plainly eroded very much UNlike what is seen at the horizon line between the two layers.

>>
The valley would obviously gradually fill with sand first - either wind blown or carried by rivers. <<

Speaking of rivers if there are rivers cutting and carrying sand great distances they must be very powerful, fast and very broad to lay down the kind of layer that seems to be there. I don't know how far it reaches but if it's beyond about a half a mile I can't picture any kind of river that could do that other than perhaps a dam burst. Also you speak about this hypothetical hillside which would have valleys filled first and that means if you have the ability to see it in cross section you would see those hills and valleys rather than a flat line. And the valleys would have obvious river or creek details. So I'm not buying your idea of a hill. It might be there but I don't want to hunt for it and you haven't shown it to me.

You are asking me to explain features that I did not see in the video and I must take your word for. There are no significant and indisputable erosion features that I can see. When Hutton wrote about this place he was seemingly impressed by the layering and also the folding but he neglected to think about what the erosion would be. You want me to explain things, but I am also asking you to explain your view and you have given a poor explanation in my opinion. It seems like we are talking past each other and there seems also to be no other persons wanting to participate in this, so respectfully I probably will decline to comment further. But of course that's been my feeling previously and I seem to not be able to resist coming back later.

#38 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 14 December 2016 - 03:50 PM

W>>And the 'lower jagged stuff' is similarly eroded where exposed compared to where still overlain by sandstone (as shown in the pics above). Do you now agree with this because this has been your main argument.<<

I can't answer that because I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

I don’t see what is so difficult about this. I hope you are not just pretending not to understand ?

 

I have said it in my own words many times but I'll try again. I think your view is that the greywacke was at the surface for at least many thousand years before it was later covered by the sandstone...is that right?

 

About 65 million years actually – enough time for a mountain range to be eroded down to low hills

 

It may not have looked exactly like what is seen along the shore today with deep jagged crevices, but it would be very plainly eroded very much UNlike what is seen at the horizon line between the two layers.

 

???
It is plainly eroded – as shown in the picture I posted in #34. How can you look it at it and say it isn’t ? I even put a picture of the wave washed greywacke next to it for comparison.
 

>>
The valley would obviously gradually fill with sand first - either wind blown or carried by rivers. <<

Speaking of rivers if there are rivers cutting and carrying sand great distances they must be very powerful, fast and very broad to lay down the kind of layer that seems to be there.

 

The sand was sourced from eroding mountains to the north east. Braided river systems carried sand, not a single very broad river, and it wouldn’t be very fast otherwise it wouldn’t deposit sand.

 

Also you speak about this hypothetical hillside which would have valleys filled first and that means if you have the ability to see it in cross section you would see those hills and valleys rather than a flat line. And the valleys would have obvious river or creek details. So I'm not buying your idea of a hill. It might be there but I don't want to hunt for it and you haven't shown it to me.

 

Does this picture help ? Remember also that the higher cliff section (hill) does not have a conglomerate boundary layer while this feature is present at the low point (valley). As I have explained, eroded scree would obviously end up lower down to eventually be incorporated into the conglomerate when the sand started being laid down.

 

Attached File  SiccarPoint_Contact-600x363.jpg   77.72KB   0 downloads

 

source

 

 

You want me to explain things, but I am also asking you to explain your view and you have given a poor explanation in my opinion.

 

Well I’ve done my best. Is this view shared by anyone else reading this ? I don't know how to explain it any clearer.

Oh, and you still haven’t explained the presence of greywacke fragments in the base of the sandstone which clearly had to be hard rock when eroded (rather than soft and wet according to your model)



#39 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 27 December 2016 - 04:52 PM

CMI’s Dr Tas Walker has written an article from the YEC perspective regarding Siccar Point. It is full of misleading and outright wrong statements and conclusions.
http://creation.com/...a-long-age-icon

(Article text in italics)

The lower rocks are composed of grey vertical beds of alternating greywacke and shale. Greywacke is a type of sandstone which indicates that it was deposited very rapidly. It is composed of particles with a range of sizes, from very coarse sand to fine clay. This means that the sediment was transported and deposited so rapidly that it did not have time to sort into different sizes.”

Yep, the mainstream view is also that the greywacke was laid rapidly during underwater marine avalanches down the continental shelf which makes this following paragraph in the article completely redundant:

“Also, the grains of sand in greywacke are not rounded, but jagged, indicating again that the sand was transported rapidly. If it had been trans­ported slowly in a river, the sharp edges would have been worn smooth as the moving sand particles rubbed each other.

Nobody is saying that the greywacke was laid by rivers so that is nothing but a strawman.

What is very conspicuous is that the article mentions the shale which alternates with the greywacke right at the start but then completely neglects to explain it. Under the mainstream view the shale (which is composed of fine grained silt sized particles) was laid down very slowly in between the periodic greywacke landslide events. Clearly under the catastrophic flood scenario there is no explanation for this pattern (there would be no extended calm period for deposition of a silt layer).

 

And the flat strata sit one on top of the other—without any sign of a break in deposition—indicating the fast deposition processes operated continuously while the whole rock deposit was formed.”

So again confirming that CMI are completely ignoring the fine grained shale layers. If there was continuous fast deposition you certainly would not get alternating strata as shown at Siccar Point. How can this be denied ?

Under the “Folding and eroding” section:

Not only were the lower rocks deposited quickly, but they were folded while they were still soft and contained abundant water.”

Well that claim is blown out of the water by the presence of ripple marks that are visible on exposed vertical strata today (as shown in the image in the first post of this thread). How would these beautifully preserved ripples remain intact if they were uplifted vertically while still soft ? And of course the presence of eroded greywacke fragments in the boundary. You have got to be joking if you think that makes sense in light of the rapid soft folding claimed by the creationist camp. Clearly the greywacke would need to be solid rock to enable fragments to be incorporated into the later deposited red sandstone.

 

The next paragraph contains a claim (Indy's primary argument) that is blatantly false:

 

“However, the contact shows no differential weathering, which indicates that the erosion was by catastrophic processes, unlike the gradual erosion of the countryside today.

 

Again, as shown by the photos in this thread, there absolutely is differential weathering of the contact.

 

Regarding the overlying red sandstone layers:

 

Furthermore, the Old Red Sandstone covers a huge geographical area, indicating that the catastrophe was very large. In the Scottish Midland Valley, which incorporates Siccar Point, the sediments are deposited in a rectangular basin. It is 400 km long from Siccar Point in the east to Northern Ireland in the west. It is 100 km wide, from the Southern Uplands to the Grampian Mountains in the north. It consists of pebble beds, sands and silts mixed with volcanic lavas and is more than 7 km thick.”

 

Followed by:

 

“The successive beds of the Old Red Sandstone show they were deposited one after the other without significant time breaks between them ……Some sandstone horizons contain animal tracks, so there was not much time involved.”

 

Are we really meant to believe that in the process of rapid catastrophic deposition to great depth of sediments across such wide areas that there were still animals running around leaving tracks during this time ? It beggars belief that the tracks are posited here as evidence for the biblical model.

 

There are many more downright false and misleading statements in the article that I could mention. Why would CMI publish such a misleading article ? Why do they avoid an honest appraisal of the facts ?



#40 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 30 December 2016 - 01:07 PM

>>How would these beautifully preserved ripples remain intact if they were uplifted vertically while still soft ? <

How do you explain ripple marks being formed and preserved under the ocean after a landslide?

Also I believe you said previously that the Red Sandstone was deposited by a river. Do you believe this river was 100 kilometers wide? And how would it produce the velocity needed to carry sand over long distances?

Also, do you deny that a rapid deposition can produce layering?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users