Summations Only

Yes. Obviously a landscape. There is no time between two consecutive time periods. 0.0 seconds. Well, a lot of the time tree roots rot, you know. Most things do, which is why most things aren't fossilized. But in conditions in which tree stumps are preserved, the tree roots are often found attached to them. We have said clearly, distinctly, and repeatedly that the scenario you have just sketched out didn't happen, couldn't happen, wouldn't happen, and is directly contradicted by all the evidence. We are not obliged to produce a "reasonable explanation" for imaginary things in your head.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Who said it would be, implicitly, every creationist who attributes the geological and fossil record to the Flood.

And so would I, though for sane reasons. But also you should expect to find marine life in deserts, since you deny they were deserts. Good luck with that. I should point out that it's not always about you.

Except the ones that either aren't eroded or aren't flat, or which are marine and so would not be considered "landscapes".I'm not sure that that leaves anything, I'd have to look it up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. Why do you say that? None of the rocks in the geological record have been "replaced", that is why they are still there. Quite flat, yes. You remember how in my book I discussed the principle of original horizontality? This is how sediment is deposited by real processes, and so is not evidence of deposition by magical processes.

The rocks are still there, Faith. This is why there are sedimentary rocks.

No.

No. Not "somehow". We know exactly how real processes work and can point to them happening and observe them. This makes real geology entirely different from your vague daydreams.

No. We have explained to you the logic of the geological position. It is entirely different from the crazy crap that you have made up in your head.

No.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No.Why in God's name would you say such a thing?The bodies of dead organisms get buried in sediment all the time, and this is not concomitant with the extinction of all life. For example, my grandmother has been buried, but I am still alive.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It does seem to be implicit in your posts that the normal sedimentary processes that we can see burying organic remains today should have caused the complete extinction of everything.

Any time you want another try at reconciling the fossil record with the Flood myth, feel free. Ooh, how about ... real geology?You can learn about this here. Over a hundred thousand words of exposition, none of which are "flooddidit".

We don't need to look at "ALL creatures", we could use sampling methods.For example, consider "Lucy". Here's the bones. Now, "Lucy" is the most complete specimen in her entire genus. How many is that? According to this article: So "Lucy" is the best preserved specimen out of (conservatively) 200+ members of her genus. This tells us that good preservation is rare in australopithecines, and unless there's some special reason why that genus should be particularly badly preserved, we may extrapolate from that. The rarity of the conditions is inferred from the number of fossils ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The fact that she's an australopithecine. Perhaps you could point us to a genus which you think is always perfectly preserved. I don't see why. Also, practically all fossils are found at the top of the strata, where we live. The term you want (but cannot use for religious reasons) is not "higher" but "later".So this aside let's look at a dinosaur species. According to WP, more than 50 specimens of T. rex have been discovered, of which the most complete is the specimen known as "Sue", which is 73% complete. This figure falls off quite rapidly: "Black Beauty", the 14th most complete specimen, is only 28% complete.Specimens of Tyrannosaurus - Wikipedia