Jump to content


Photo

Angular Unconformities


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#41 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 30 December 2016 - 03:41 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?


Hmmm answering a question with a question thereby avoiding actually answering.

I don't know the exact sequence of events that allowed greywacke ripples to be preserved (I wasn't there ;) ) but they are not present everywhere, just in certain places. Perhaps there was a temporary fast current (maybe caused by the landslide that laid the layer ?) that created the ripple marks and when the current ceased they were buried by the fine sediment that consequently fell out of suspension. We know the ripples did form and preserve somehow, because we can observe them now. However, if the layer was tilted violently to a vertical angle while still soft I don't see these ripples being preserved, do you ?

You've sidestepped the greywacke fragments in the conglomerate boundary layer, again. Do you agree this proves that the greywacke must have been solid rock when the horizontal red sandstone layers were deposited ?
 

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?


I said the sands were deposited by braided river systems in a semi arid environment. Flash floods during rainy seasons could transport sand around. Sand was probably also transported around as dunes though the layering at the location of Siccar Point does suggest deposition by water I think. Btw the red sandstone is quite fossil poor (reflecting the terrestrial environment) but what is there is non marine without exception. These fossil facts don't lend themselves to your global flood model very well...
 

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


No. You're not going to bring up Mt St. Helens are you ?



#42 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 30 December 2016 - 04:31 PM

>>Do you agree this proves that the greywacke must have been solid rock when the horizontal red sandstone layers were deposited ?>>

 

Yes,  probably.  Do you agree that there must have been substantial horizontal movement by the sandstone layer above it?

 

Your idea surely could NOT have caused the transported quartzite rock found in the GC.

 

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

W>>No. You're not going to bring up Mt St. Helens are you ?>>

 

 Yep...so that disproves the point you tried to make.  Distinct sorting and layering can be done without it implying long time between the layers.  AND this can be done underwater.  If you were shown areas around Mt. St. Helens (without knowing their context) you would tell us how LOOOOOONG it had to take to make them. 

 

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

 

Two words: cementing agents.  They would be no longer soft or AS soft as they were when the ripple marks were made.  Something firm enough to record ripple marks still COULD be folded.  Of course you believe such yourself, because you think solid, hardened rock gets folded, right?  Do I need to show that to you?  (I have pictures of folded rock which can NOT occur at the surface...like you must believe happened.)  Can YOU can explain them?...how did they get hard enough to not be obliterated when more stuff from the "landslide" fell onto them?  Was it some LOOOONG time period to get them hard and then conveniently there was ANOTHER landslide of stuff to preserve them?  It was NOT just a soft filtering down of stuff falling from above either (which sounds pretty "ad hoc" to me!)...it was violent horizontal movement, right?  BTW, I would defy you to locate a single place on the planet where ripple marks are found deep on the floor of any ocean...even IF it is near some supposed landslide!  The concept of waves or flows of sediments washing into land areas and then water receding out (for a short time) explains not only ripple marks, but also animal tracks.  Your idea surely does NOT.



#43 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 02 January 2017 - 04:25 PM

>>Do you agree this proves that the greywacke must have been solid rock when the horizontal red sandstone layers were deposited ?>>

Yes, probably. Do you agree that there must have been substantial horizontal movement by the sandstone layer above it?


Finally got a straight answer, thanks. So that shows that the red sands could not have been deposited rapidly after uplift and folding of the lower strata as you have been asserting. Not sure I understand your question though. If you mean when the sand was originally deposited then yes, it was moved about by water/wind.
 

Your idea surely could NOT have caused the transported quartzite rock found in the GC.


What’s that got to do with Siccar Point ? Anyhow, I already answered this to you before on the out of place fossils thread. The block may have been eroded from an island of Precambrian rock that protruded up through sea floor sediment during the Cambrian. Different scenario.
 

Me: >>Also, do you deny that a rapid deposition can produce layering?
W>>No. You're not going to bring up Mt St. Helens are you ?>>

Yep...so that disproves the point you tried to make. Distinct sorting and layering can be done without it implying long time between the layers. AND this can be done underwater. If you were shown areas around Mt. St. Helens (without knowing their context) you would tell us how LOOOOOONG it had to take to make them.


It’s such a desperate ploy to bring up Mt St Helen’s to extrapolate to every different type of sedimentary rock around the world. Do you think geologists can’t tell if a formation is volcanic in origin ? Are you saying that Siccar is volcanic ? The greywacke is a turbidite rock, deposited by turbidity currents. That part is laid quickly but the interbedded mudstone (composed of fine particles) was not.
 

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

Two words: cementing agents. They would be no longer soft or AS soft as they were when the ripple marks were made. Something firm enough to record ripple marks still COULD be folded.


You can’t just pull cementing agents out of your rescue bag (like you did for preserved dinosaur footprints halfway through the flood in the OOPF thread). The sediment would still be full of water. That water needs to be squeezed out before it starts compressing to rock, a process that takes a lot of time. Surely you can’t seriously believe those ripples could survive being tilted to a near vertical position only hours after formation ? Because it would be hours under HPT wouldn’t it ? And doesn’t HPT say that cementing agents only came out of solution years after the flood as the oceans cooled ?
 

Of course you believe such yourself, because you think solid, hardened rock gets folded, right? Do I need to show that to you? (I have pictures of folded rock which can NOT occur at the surface...like you must believe happened.) Can YOU can explain them?...how did they get hard enough to not be obliterated when more stuff from the "landslide" fell onto them? Was it some LOOOONG time period to get them hard and then conveniently there was ANOTHER landslide of stuff to preserve them? It was NOT just a soft filtering down of stuff falling from above either (which sounds pretty "ad hoc" to me!)...it was violent horizontal movement, right?


I’ve told you before that solid rock gets folded deep underground where pressure and heat allows plastic deformation so please discard your surface strawman.

I don’t see why a sudden burial by turbidite would necessarily obliterate ripples, especially if already buried under mud (which would have been the case since the fossil ripples occur on the upper surface of the greywacke, the softer mudstone having been eroded away). Remember these ripples aren’t everywhere, it’s hardly a stretch to imagine favoured locations for preservation. Also remember that only the harder greywacke (turbidite) layer was formed by sudden horizontal directional flow. The interbedded mud must (because of the laws of physics) have been deposited under benign conditions.
 

BTW, I would defy you to locate a single place on the planet where ripple marks are found deep on the floor of any ocean...even IF it is near some supposed landslide!


I’ve already shown you a link that proves this (post #5)
 

The concept of waves or flows of sediments washing into land areas and then water receding out (for a short time) explains not only ripple marks, but also animal tracks. Your idea surely does NOT.


It’s mindboggling how you could seriously believe your model explains these things better. The alternating greywacke layers are many hundreds of metres in depth. How many times did your ad hoc cycles of water transgression and receding take place to create these layers (this is even before the red sandstone is laid with its associated non marine fossil fauna) ? How on earth could land animals survive all this to wander about making tracks during the flood period ? Why do trace fossils of burrowing animals occur throughout the sequence and other marine fossils such as graptolites also occur throughout with not a single terrestrial lifeform ?
 



#44 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2017 - 04:23 PM

I've snipped over the following quote from Tirian, from the "No evidence could convince me evolution has occurred" thread because I am astonished this kind of assertion can be made in the face of the evidence, which seems to suggest that no evidence from geology could convince that millions of years has occurred either.
 

Here I think young earth creationist actually have much better theories explaining the facts than the standard old earth theories. Lyell's uniformism for explaining the geological evidence doesn't really explain the facts we see. And when we start examining geological evidence from a catastrophic events perspective we don't need millions of year anymore.


If he wishes to respond, perhaps Tirian could explain angular unconformities like Siccar's Point, the subject of this thread. Back in 1788, pioneer geologist James Hutton realised the feature could only be accounted for with deep time and help shift the paradigm held of a 6000 yr young earth.

Perhaps Blitzking would like to pitch in as well given that his expertise on origins is in the top 0.001% of the population...

The short video describing Siccar's Point can be found in the OP.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users