Difflugia wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:48 am
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:49 amUnconformities is a
problem for SG, not a support of SG.
What problem do you think they present? You're just making assertions without support and vague ones at that.
We can explore those problems when you've answered the questions I've posed:
Why would there either be no deposition or erosion in unconformities? How could you tell the difference? Why and how would erosion result in a layer parallel to the one below it? If erosion did occur, was it above water when it occurred?
Maybe, but your argument so far seems to rely on a lack of unconformities. You've asserted without support that there aren't any (or aren't enough or something) and I've given you sources that discuss multiple unconformities corresponding to different time periods.
My argument is: unconformities are an ad hoc explanation to inject erosions into the strata to claim that erosions have occurred.
Are there many unconformities in the Grand Canyon and all of them defy explanation or is the Great Unconformity the only unconformity at all? One of the documents I linked listed ten different ones. Is ten not very many? Are those not really unconformities? Is your argument that geologists can't explain them or that they're some invented artifact of the data and don't really exist?
The more unconformities are posited in the Grand Canyon, the more explanations are required. The questions above are multiplied with each unconformity.
So far, the main strength of your argument is that nobody can figure out exactly what it is in order to refute it.
No strength is really required to counter ad hoc explanations. The burden is for SG to show what really happened in unconformities.
The explanation relies on deep time, but the unconformities themselves are just observations.
If you viewed a sedimentary strata, would you be able to identify where are the unconformities? Highly doubtful unless someone told you how old each strata is supposed to be. Visually, they do not show there is any particular time gap. So, no, I would disagree they are just observations.
Yes, unconformities rely on deep time. So, using that to say a strata represents deep time would be circular logic.
Is your argument that those sources are invalid or is this a non sequitur?
I'm saying facts are more solid evidence than theories.
You've been providing photographs, but using them to support statements that apply to anywhere from hundreds of thousands of square miles to the entire world.
Up to now, I would only claim the photographs represents sites that we see in the photographs I've presented. But, I will now extend the claim and make a prediction. The pattern that I speak about should apply to
any place around the world that has sedimentary layers. That is, all sedimentary strata (whether we've yet seen them or not), should exhibit the pattern of relatively little geologic activity in the layers and then after all the layers are deposited would we see major geologic activity.
If your argument for the Flood is independent of science, say that now and I'll know that I'm not the intended audience. If it's not, reference the data.
Everything I've presented is emperical evidence that anyone can verify for themselves. All sources I've used are from secular sources. And I have not appealed to faith or even the Bible. So, not sure what you mean about my arguments are independent of science. If this is not science, what is?
I don't know if this is complete, but I think it's sufficient.
What I posted is pointing out exceptions to the pattern does not nullify the pattern.
For the Great Unconformity, I've covered it in
post 353.
If you thought I meant literally, I didn't, but didn't expect that to be confusing.
I know it wasn't literal, but readers that pop in here would not. So, it needs to be clarified I've never said that.
I meant it figuratively as you dismissing supported arguments without presenting any support of your own. If you don't think you figuratively did that, either, here is an example:
As for even being figurative, I would disagree with that also. My point is finding an exception here and there does not invalidate the general pattern.
But, we can spend more time investigating the Surprise Canyon formation.
Surprise Canyon formation was only discovered recently.
"George Billingsley of the United States Geological Survey first recognized the Surprise Canyon Formation as a separate stratigraphic unit, belonging to neither the Supai Group or the Redwall Limestone, during reconnaissance geologic mapping of the western Grand Canyon in the mid-1970s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_Canyon_Formation
Outcroppings of the Surprise Canyon are remote and difficult to reach.
"The outcroppings of the Surprise Canyon Formation are in remote areas of the Grand Canyon and very difficult to reach."
https://azdailysun.com/suprise-at-the-c ... 76fc8.html
The Surpise Canyon Formation does not appear to be a continuous layer of rock, but only exist as scattered lens-shaped areas.
"In addition, the outcrops are not a continuous layer of rock as are other in the Grand Canyon but exist only in lens-shaped areas atop the Redwall Limestone."
https://azdailysun.com/suprise-at-the-c ... 76fc8.html
"Within the Grand Canyon regions, the Surprise Canyon Formation is exposed as isolated, lens-shaped patches throughout much of the Grand Canyon and in parts of Marble Canyon to the east. All of the known outcrops are discontinuous lenses up to several tens of meter thick and from a few tens of meters to nearly a kilometer wide. Nowhere does this formation occur as a single, continuous sheet, as do all of the other sedimentary rock units of Paleozoic age in the Grand Canyon."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_Canyon_Formation
If it is lens-shaped areas, it would not classify as a paleoriver that exhibits erosion. It could just be areas of deposition of sediment of different composition. And it does appear the sediment is qualitatively different than other sediments since it is high in marine fossil content.
"The middle limestone unit of Surprise Canyon Formation contains an abundant and diverse fauna of marine invertebrate. Its coarse-grained limestones have yielded more than 60 species of marine invertebrates."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_Canyon_Formation
If Surprise Canyon Formation is formed as part of a sinkhole or valley, it would be strange that it is on top of a karst surface. Underneath the SCF is the Redwall Limestone, which is a soluble rock. Shouldn't it form underground drainage systems within the limestone, not on the surface of it?
Does your idea of "practically none" allow for these? That's not a rhetorical question. I don't know what you mean.
Prior to 1970, the SCF wasn't even discovered yet. And even now we know little of it. Further, it represents a very small part of the Grand Canyon, in both scale and time. So, even
if SCF was an example of erosion (which I've argued it is not), then it is practically none compared to the entire Grand Canyon.
otseng wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:22 pmHere's another way to ask it - do we see any canyon formation (or even a river formation) in the lower layers?
No, the SCF is not an example of ancient river or canyon formation.
Just offer scientific sources that together describe the Grand Canyon in a way that you agree with and think can only be explained by the Flood.
I could offer articles from creationist journals, but I highly doubt anyone would accept those.