Angular Unconformities

ardipithecus · #11 23rd February 2003, 12:05 AM

Yesterday at 03:13 PM webboffin said this in Post #9

.....and what about it?

That the line of the angular unconformity represents -- MUST represent --- a time which the land was being eroded.

Layers form. Layers are uplifted (or sea goes down) and land is tilted and eroded.  Land goes down (or sea goes up) and more strata is laid.  Land goes up again (or sea goes down).  In case of the Grand Canyon add then canyon gets cut.

 

webboffin · #12 23rd February 2003, 02:14 AM

I see

ardipithecus · #13 25th February 2003, 06:59 PM

I found another image of the unformities of the Grand Canyon.  This image should make it obvious why the disconformities represent times of erosion:

ardipithecus · #14 25th February 2003, 07:51 PM

This diagram will make the disconformities even clearer (look at the layer called the Redwall Limestone):

 

Image comes from this page.

 

ardipithecus · #15 26th February 2003, 12:39 AM

I guess I should have called this thread "unconformities" and not "angular unconformities."  :-)

Thus far we have shown that the Grand Canyon has a number of unconformities.   As the reader should know by know, an unconformity is where erosion has removed material in the past.  However the previous diagrams might give people the implication that there are far fewer unconformities in the Grand Canyon then there really are. 

For example the Supai group is shown in the previous images are shown without any unconformities in it.  However lets take a close look at the Supai group:

I scanned this from The Supai Group of Grand Canyon.  (The title really does have no "the" in it.) It is by Edwin D. McKee and is U.S. Geologic Survey Professional Paper 1173 and was published in 1982.  McKee provided many diagrams and photos of the unconformities (erosional surfaces) indicated in the above image.  There are very clear disconformities.  Indeed each of these have river channels in them. 

So Noachian Deluge fans, is the Supai group formed before, during, or after the Flood?

 

ardipithecus · #16 27th February 2003, 06:34 PM

No YEC wants to comment? Maybe they are conceding that the Earth is far older than a few thousand years old. :-)

After all unconformities are such an obvious disproof of their "geology."

ardipithecus · #17 2nd March 2003, 02:50 AM

 

Here is a photo of the Hutton Unconformity from message one:

Here is an angular unformity from Texas:

ikester7579 · #18 2nd March 2003, 03:02 AM

20th February 2003 at 09:54 PM ardipithecus said this in Post #1

Here is a 200 year old illustration of the Hutton Unconformity:

The Grand Canyon threads note such an angular unformity in the Grand Canyon. 

Such structures immediately falsify any Flood Geology that requires the Earth (or the fossil bearing formations) be under 10 thousand years old.   

It is thus not surprising how dead quite the YECs are on the subject. 

The question becomes to any YEC: how can an angular unconformity form?

 

 

As someone ask me once: This is quite old, do you have anything newer?

ikester7579 · #19 2nd March 2003, 03:06 AM

And how long did it take for granite rocks to appear? If you bust one open, you will find a radio isotope rings inside. Since an radio isotope half life is less than 5 seconds, how could these rings get caught in every granite rock? Seems like a sudden formation happened. Funny how old earth evolutionist don't address this. :rolleyes:

webboffin · #20 2nd March 2003, 03:24 AM

Seems funny to me that this subject is brought up to dispell another. But anyways.