There is only one layer that could possibly be described as “lower shale layer”, and it’s the correct one. He even quoted the page as saying:
Above the non-conformity (represented in red) is a Lower Cambrian sequence.
…
The Lower Cambrian sequence misses at this location the Zabriskie Formation (which is found immediately to the right of the area) and starts with the trilobite-rich Latham Shales, followed by the oncolite-rich Chambless Formation.
The problem with that is that the fossils are above the unconformity, which can be fit into the Flood time scale: below the unconformity, ancient, lifeless, pre-Flood; above it, life in Flood deposits.
Sure, I just wanted to make it clear that @Timothy_Horton description of the unconformity was correct. @r_speir asked for unconformities that “contain traces of life”, so it wasn’t really clear which of the 2 contacting strata he was interested in. The unconformity refers to the relationship between 2 layers, not a particular one.
The point is that an unconformity with fossils above and below causes big problems for the flood model, as it requires sediment to be deposited, lithified, folded, and eroded, and then more sediment deposited atop the erosional surface, all in a few days.
Those physical challenges are a huge problem for Flood geology even if the strata above and below contains no fossils. That’s the whole point. The “fossils” angle is just a distraction.
You still don’t understand do you. There are about 4.4 billion years of earth history before Noah’s Flood. Does that maybe give you a hint to the answer to your question?
No.No.No, it does not present a problem. There is not a hard and fast rule about where fossils will reside in relation to an unconformity. I did not make that claim.
Not a problem at all. If you find fossils in what you think is a pre-Flood layer, then you are incorrect about the “pre-Flood” label. It is that simple.
So you lose the argument and make an appeal to doctrine? Strange that you would go where I have not even touched. How does this empty come-back make you look? Intelligent?
Not for r_speir. Remember, he’s an old earth, young life creationist Anything without fossils below it can be claimed to be a pre-flood rock, potentially billions of years old.
I believe radio-dating of the planet returns a very, old age. My private and personal thoughts on the matter however, are that the earth may be much older than the radio date return. We must rely on old lava flows to date the planet and the question becomes How deep has our oldest flow gone? Is there deeper material within the mantel that would date our planet very differently?