Jump to content


Photo

Angular Unconformities


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#41 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 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
  • 822 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
  • 822 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.



#45 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:58 PM

Tirian didn't wish to respond (so it appears). Has anyone got a reasonable Noahic flood explanation for angular unconformities such as that found at Siccar Point ? Indydave tried in this thread but was finally silenced after he finally responded (after repeated requests) to the point about the fragments of greywacke rock mixed in with the overlying horizontal red sandstone (post 43). Because if the different layers were laid rapidly when soft, there wouldn't be hard rock to be eroded into rubble would there ? Come on people of scientific rigour and logic, how did this boundary conglomerate form ?

 

"We felt necessarily carried back to a time when the schistus on which we stood was yet at the bottom of the sea, and when the sandstone before us was only beginning to be deposited, in the shape of sand or mud, from the waters of the supercontinent ocean... The mind seemed to grow giddy by looking so far into the abyss of time; and whilst we listened with earnestness and admiration to the philosopher who was now unfolding to us the order and series of these wonderful events, we became sensible how much further reason may sometimes go than imagination may venture to follow."

 

James Hutton, 1788



#46 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 14 November 2017 - 04:05 PM

"The hypothesis that the sedimentary rock layers were laid down by a single flood event is falsified by the observations at Siccar Point."

HUH???

Siccar Point shows unconformity from beginning to end...It is a monument to catastrophe. It’s an icon of Noah’s Flood.!!

It takes a lot of nerve to point to something that refutes your myth and claim that it supports it!!!

The above is snipped over from the missing transitionals thread. See below for responses to the copy paste in that post below.
 

At Siccar Point, the underlying Silurian graywacke consists of turbidites, now vertically inclined, which were deposited catastrophically from underwater density flows running across the ocean floor. Hutton knew nothing of these remarkable processes.

 

Irrelevant diversion. Whether Hutton knew about turbidite formation is not important to the angular unconformity.

 

The overlying Devonian Old Red Sandstone at Siccar Point is composed of thick, cross-bedded strata indicating deposition from flowing water. From modern flume experiments we have learned much about the conditions that produce such features. Now we can estimate the direction of the paleocurrent and the depth of the water.

 

Also irrelevant to the issue. The secular account of the ORS deposition is via braided river systems in a semi arid environment.

 

The contact between the two sandstone deposits has been eroded flat.

 

False and I can only presume purposely hiding the facts. As pointed out in the video in the OP (at the 3 minute mark) the underlying vertically tilted rock juts ups into the overlying horizontal layer of red sandstone. More than that, the contact is at a much higher level in the nearby cliff which gives an example of palaeotopography (a small hill and valley was originally present before the red sands were laid on top).

 

The immediate overlying layer consists of angular broken rocks, breccia, suggesting the erosion was by catastrophic processes. Thus the Siccar Point unconformity from beginning to end is a monument to catastrophe. It’s an icon of Noah’s Flood.

 

This is astonishing that they claim this as evidence for the flood. After repeated requests, I eventually got IndyDave to (grudgingly) acknowledge (in post 43) that this point about the breccia did not work for him.

 

So Blitzking as you have claimed that Siccar Point actually supports the flood, then please explain the breccia (and Mike since you “liked” his copy paste for some reason). If the first sediments were rapidly laid down, then tilted, then after that a different type of sediment (the red sands) were laid down on top, how would there be pieces of rock from the first layer mixed in with the first few feet of the overlying red sandstone ? There would have been no rock to erode, it would just be saturated sediment.

 

Let’s see what you come up with.

 

Attached File  boundary.jpg   21.8KB   0 downloads


  • Sleepy House likes this

#47 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 20 November 2017 - 04:14 PM

Let's see what you come up with


Why the silence Blitzking ? You stridently claimed Siccar Point refutes my "myth" but didn't explain why. You've been checkmated with the observations I have shown that clearly make no sense whatsoever with the biblical flood idea and can only sensibly be explained by deep time.

 

Don't you find it disturbing that your copy paste source glibly claimed the rock fragments in the boundary layer between the contrasting rock types are evidence for the flood while ignoring the begging question as to how you get rock fragments from saturated, recently laid sediment ?



#48 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 23 November 2017 - 06:41 PM

Well since no one has come to refute this...well, I can't either. Continuity vs Catastrophe is tricky business and beyond me. Good job here, Wibble.

Bretz, an atheist, was ridiculed for decades for proposing that the scablands of E Washington was caused by a flood of epic proportion and he turned out to be correct, but it isn't proof of a global catastrophe.

Likewise mammoths have been found standing up, flash frozen indicating temps of -150 degrees, with buttercups in their stomachs and mouths. Catastrophe unexplaianble by science, yes. Proof of a global catastrophe? Nope.

As far as this goes it looks as if a flood on its own could not have done this. Do you have an explanation for how the rocks from the first layer are mixed in with the sandstone?

#49 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 November 2017 - 08:24 AM

 

 

Wibble: If the first sediments were rapidly laid down, then tilted, then after that a different type of sediment (the red sands) were laid down on top, how would there be pieces of rock from the first layer mixed in with the first few feet of the overlying red sandstone ? There would have been no rock to erode, it would just be saturated sediment.

 

No that doesn't follow, we don't know under that circumstance how fast the sediment would consolidate or whether loosely unconsolidated chunks could later harden as the blocky angular remnants, or themselves erode into those shapes being semi-hardened or hardened in part, and the harder parts being left as remnants. 

 

"There would have been no rock to erode, it would just be saturated sediment." But are you saying there would be nothing present to erode then? For if it was loosely consolidated it could have been ripped out perhaps in chunks. It is not inconceivable that the chunks of semi-consolidated matter might leave remnants that they now find. Seems you didn't think through your thought experiment. :gotcha:

 

 

 

T.Walker: Large clasts (broken pieces) of greywacke, some the size of a football, have been ripped off the underlying rocks and dumped on top of the eroded surface. The breccia covers a huge geographical area and the flat surfaces of the rocks tend to face the same direction. This is an imbricate structure and indicates strong water currents. The broken pieces of rock are blocky and angular, indicating they did not roll against each other very much. Obviously they were not transported far from where they were broken off, and they were deposited quickly. This breccia layer is clear evidence that fast- flowing water eroded the contact and dumped the broken material on top.

 

There is no way to measure the time, because there are no experiments showing how it could happen so you don't get to conclude that the rock couldn't have hardened in a flood. So your "checkmate" was based on a claim you haven't supported.

 

It has been proven that rock can solidify quickly with cementing agents, there isn't necessarily any merit to the assumption that they had to be soft. At the very least just saying, "how could this happen with a flood" doesn't mean it can't, so it isn't the checkmate you think it is Wibble unless you can show us your experiments that prove it isn't possible with a flood, which is your claim. So just asserting it impossible is just that - an assertion.

 

Experiments have shown fast hardening of rock; we also have to consider the tremendous pressures/forces involved in a world scale flood.

 

 

 

The biblical geological model introduces two additional factors affecting the response of rocks to disturbances, factors not normally considered in uniformitarian models. The first factor involves the extent to which a sediment has hardened since deposition and before disturbance. Material properties of rocks such as fracture strength, elasticity and viscosity which prescribe how the rock will respond to disturbance all depend on the degree of diagenesis. This in turn depends on such factors as the physical and chemical characteristics of the rock material, temperature and pressure resulting from depth of burial, and the time between deposition and disturbance. Given the right chemical situation, soft sediment can harden rapidly. Concrete, for example, can set within a few hours and reach full strength after a month or two. Yet, even though sediments could harden quickly, the biblical model suggests that sometimes rocks would have been disturbed and deformed while still soft


#50 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 November 2017 - 08:40 AM

 

 

Wibble: This is astonishing that they claim this as evidence for the flood. After repeated requests, I eventually got IndyDave to (grudgingly) acknowledge (in post 43) that this point about the breccia did not work for him.

 

Can you not misrepresent posters not present, it seems Dave only said the lower rock would have to be hard. You keep making out everything you say is the force of a knockout punch(SPIN), but then I investigate and in fact find out that you are claiming feathers are as hard as bricks. They claim it evidence for a flood because of the evidence of catastrophic erosion all in the same direction, and the flat, equally weathered points between the two types of rock. In short, just because you call all of the evidence that fits with a catastrophic flood irrelevant or ignore it, doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm afraid there is plenty of evidence that fits with it not being long ages but as usual you only focus on one line of evidence, the line you believe will favour fictional ages of evolution. How is it all rocks show evidence of watery catastrophe, and how is it you miss that important factor every single time - no matter what we debate, there is always inescapably evidence of watery catastrophe, but oh no, it could never be a flood. :rolleyes:

 

And there are points Dave makes which are still perfectly valid;

 

 

 

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. 


#51 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 November 2017 - 09:12 AM

 

 

Wibble: You've been checkmated with the observations I have shown that clearly make no sense whatsoever with the biblical flood idea and can only sensibly be explained by deep time.

 

A pigeon-chess checkmate perhaps, especially if BK doesn't have any study in that area.

 

And it seems all you have is spin, and great proclamations and boastings of victory and how it's impossible for a flood, but I am left scratching my head after reading a lot of your posts. I looked and looked and looked for something that would mean a biblical flood couldn't explain it but couldn't find any solid reason why it can't be explained by flood catastrophe, especially considering for example that both types of sandstone show evidence they were rapidly deposited, the lower one because of it's texture and the higher because as you admit, it eroded the bottom layer. So that's two catastrophic depositions that catastrophically bury your evolutionary baloney. :gotcha:



#52 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 24 November 2017 - 02:16 PM

Well since no one has come to refute this...well, I can't either.


Thanks for your candour, which is refreshing round here. It looks like you've triggered Mike into a frenzy of denial with your post...
 

Likewise mammoths have been found standing up, flash frozen indicating temps of -150 degrees, with buttercups in their stomachs and mouths. Catastrophe unexplaianble by science, yes. Proof of a global catastrophe? Nope.


I think you've fallen for a tall tale, or at least highly exaggerated one here (for example the "buttercups" were identified from seeds not the plant) and even creationist organisations like CMI don't agree with the flash freeze idea. I don't want to derail this thread so I'll just link to this blog post which picks apart the story.
 

As far as this goes it looks as if a flood on its own could not have done this. Do you have an explanation for how the rocks from the first layer are mixed in with the sandstone?


Yes I explained that a few times in the thread, the overlying sand was deposited by rivers and wind in a semi arid environment at some point after a long period of erosion of the lower vertical layers. So in the initial phase of sand deposition, the sand was mixed in with eroded fragments of the bottom layer. As I mentioned in the thread these fragments aren't present where the boundary is at a higher altitude in the locality but the conglomerate boundary layer is prominent at beach level like where shown in the video. This relates to an ancient hill and valley (obviously eroded scree would collect lower down not on top of the hill).



#53 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 24 November 2017 - 05:10 PM

 

Wibble: If the first sediments were rapidly laid down, then tilted, then after that a different type of sediment (the red sands) were laid down on top, how would there be pieces of rock from the first layer mixed in with the first few feet of the overlying red sandstone ? There would have been no rock to erode, it would just be saturated sediment.


No that doesn't follow, we don't know under that circumstance how fast the sediment would consolidate or whether loosely unconsolidated chunks could later harden as the blocky angular remnants, or themselves erode into those shapes being semi-hardened or hardened in part, and the harder parts being left as remnants.

 


Of course it follows, you can’t just fabricate a scenario of fresh, sodden sediment rapidly turning to rock for no reason. That’s one that IndyDave tried to pull when he was snookered with how dinosaur tracks were preserved in the midst of the flood in another thread. It’s funny how you link some text from CMI in your post which talks about how concrete can set quickly. A bit lame to bring up a material specifically designed to harden quickly in an attempt to make out that something natural like mud would also therefore harden into solid rock in a similarly short time. Elsewhere, you have mentioned tufa deposits where calcium carbonate relatively quickly hardens around a substrate. None of this means that an entirely different type of rock (the turbidite – alternating layers of mudstone and sandstone) could harden quickly.

In real life, sedimentary rock hardens slowly due to compression of weight of overlying layers and water is gradually squeezed out. Water percolating through can leave cementing agents to bind grains together but this doesn’t happen overnight. You assert experiments have proven rock can solidify quickly – well show us this evidence and let’s see if it relates at all to the rock type at Siccar Point.



 

 

Wibble: This is astonishing that they claim this as evidence for the flood. After repeated requests, I eventually got IndyDave to (grudgingly) acknowledge (in post 43) that this point about the breccia did not work for him.[/font][/color]


Can you not misrepresent posters not present, it seems Dave only said the lower rock would have to be hard.

 


I haven't misrepresented him at all. It was the lower rock I was trying to get Indy to admit must have been hard when the red sands were deposited on top, and eventually he did. He never tried to explain the boundary layer after that (in fact he disappeared entirely)

 

And there are points Dave makes which are still perfectly valid;


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.

 


These points by Dave that you call “perfectly valid” were strawmen. You could have read the next post I wrote and avoided repeating the same fallacy. Here it is:


 

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.

 

I am left scratching my head after reading a lot of your posts. I looked and looked and looked for something that would mean a biblical flood couldn't explain it but couldn't find any solid reason why it can't be explained by flood catastrophe,


You must have looked with your eyes firmly shut then
 

especially considering for example that both types of sandstone show evidence they were rapidly deposited, the lower one because of it's texture and the higher because as you admit, it eroded the bottom layer. So that's two catastrophic depositions that catastrophically bury your evolutionary baloney. :gotcha:[/font]


You reckon that was worth a 'gotcha' ?? The texture ? Actually each section of sandstone within the alternating sandstone - mudstone vertical layers of the turbidite was rapidly deposited but the fine grained mudstone was slowly deposited after each avalanche of continental shelf material. Repeated rhythmic layering that I suppose you will proclaim is due to the complexity of the flood but not explain any further than just stating so. As for the higher horizontal layer, a small (approx. 1 metre) boundary conglomerate layer with small blocks of turbidite mixed with the red sandstone hardly screams catastrophe.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users