Summations Only

I think Faith means this term to refer to land with at least some scraggly plants and some available water so that we might have an ecosystem. Perhaps it is not worthwhile to fight about that definition.

The problem is that it also seems to refer to a marine ecosystem. I'm just trying to get a handle on what it means at different times.

The problem for me, personally, is that I cannot tell the difference between you trying to fit geological theory into a flood scenario and you just not understanding the geological theory.Like when you were talking about landscapes being on, or between, the rocks; is that you misunderstanding geological theory, or is that you trying to fit the theory into a flood model?

As I keep saying I'm looking at the strata and trying to figure out what events had to occur to fit the standard geological scenario. If you look at the strata, understanding that geology represents a time period with a landscape based on the contents of the rock for that time period, then you realize that the landscape has to sit ON the rock just as the rock for that landscape does. It has to take the place of the rock for that time period but sit ON the rock for the previous time period. When I saw that people were getting confused I started emphasizing how the landscape takes the place of the rock for its time period. "Between" is a way of saying ON the rock of the previous time period. That isn't clear either, so now I try to remember to say only that the landscape IS or replaces the rock for the time period it represents.I'm looking only at the strata, not thinking about the Flood, just thinking about the strata and the idea that Geology constructs for each rock a "depositional environment" or what I'm calling a landscape (based on the illustrations for each time period some of which I posted in Message 333).There has been some confusion that needed to be sorted out. For instance the illustrations are presented as depicting a whole time period, but the depositional environment is determined from a single rock which in most cases is just one rock among others representing a time period. Now it seems clear that there shouldn't be any illustrations for a whole time period but for individual rocks. The rocks are different so the depositional environments are different so the illustrations should be for the rocks and not the whole time period.Nothing to do with the Flood; just trying to deal with the claims of Geology as I grasp them, sometimes not very clearly, but since I'm using illustrations that are wrong in themselves that isn't entirely my fault.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Those illustrations were not intended to describe geology. They were intended to show the change of living communities through time. I have understood this since elementary school. In each period, there were mountains and deserts and oceans and volcanoes. Just like we have today. Actually, they are for the extant environment where animals lived.Only if you are talking about the sediments, then sure a swamp will have various sandstones, mudstones, claystones and coal. You cannot be talking about the bedrock in those illustrations. The rock that the landscape sits on could be anything. It could be an Archean batholith. Does that mean that a moose on the Canadian shield is living in a magamatic environment? No, it is living in a boreal forest with a thin cover of soil over an ancient rock. The extant environment tells you very little, if anything, about what happened there before.

So pat yourself on the back. For most of us I would guess they appear to represent a whole time period with the particular living things found fossilized in the rock(s) assigned to that time period. Because, golly gee, that's what they SAY they represent, the particular time periods like the Devonian and the Jurassic and so on. AND they illustrate a selected collection of living things as supposedly found in the rock{s) that represent the identified time period. But since you are so brilliant, you really should give us ordinary folks some slack. And perhaps consider that whatever YOU got out of the illustrations isn't necessarily there.

Actually it's not what the illustrations usually say and all that I've ever seen said pretty clearly that they were artists illustrations.What they do illustrate, and this is really important, is not the geology of any period but rather the landscape, the environment, the types of biological critters that were common at that time. They do not show mudstone or shale or sandstone or limestone or granite but rather shallow seas and plains and forests and marshes and mountains and hills and volcanoes and grass and palms and critters; in other words, Landscapes.I don't see anyway anyone could honestly say the drawings (other than the maps and specifically identified geological drawings) could think for a second that they were meant to depict the geology of any time period.Even you acknowledge that the prominent feature is a selected collection of living things as supposedly found during a time period. Sometimes those displays also included actual fossils, drawings of typical fossils or casts of such fossils and the emphasis was always on the landscape, the biology, the environment and not rocks. They provide additional and conclusive evidence of what the artist is trying to depict.As mentioned many times in this thread the geology and the processes that create the different materials remain pretty constant and repetitive over the billions of years of the Earth's history while the biological samples varied and in an ordered fashion.AbE:Another point is that when a time period like Carboniferous (Mississippian/Pennsylvanian) or Jurassic or Triassic or Cretaceous is mentioned a fairly long period of time is covered and during each period things including the biological samples will evolve and change. The Pennsylvanian period as an example covers 60 Million years while the Cretaceous covers almost 80 million years. Any illustration will be as representative as a drawing of the Alamo as it existed in 1836 compared to the tourist attraction just off the River Walk of today. Landscapes will change over time and a great example is the North American Inland sea that came and went in less than half of the Cretaceous Period.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

I did not say what you think I said but the opposite.

If so I apologize but I believe I quoted what you did say. If I did not understand what is quoted then please help us to understand whatever point you are trying to make. Try rephrasing it to help us understand your position.Are you agreeing with me about what the illustrations show?

Yes. Such as: Of course they are. What else would they be? Of course. How you got anything else out of what I said is a mystery. Of course. (I'm trying not to add "duh!" -- oh well.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where on earth did I claim it did?

Okay, so are we in agreement then that what we see is a succession of landscapes over time?

Yes. Meaning that's what Geology says is seen in the strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

See, that is where so much confusion is created. What do you mean by "Yes. Meaning that's what Geology says is seen in the strata."?Yes I can understand but then you add " Meaning that's what Geology says is seen in the strata."Geology doesn't say anything. Geology is a branch of science.The conventional theories explain the facts that are seen. Geological processes remain relatively constant over time. The Biological samples though do not remain constant over time but rather evolve in an ordered fashion, grasses only show up in layers later than the first flowers and vertebrates only show up in layers later than the invertebrates; land animals in layers later than the first sea life.It is not geology that sees the material makeup and layering or the biological samples and where they are found; those are simply facts. The issue is "How can what is seen be explained?"The conventional theories adequately explain what is seen. A leaf imprint only exists if a landscape that supported the tree existed at the time the leaf grew on the surface. The dinosaur tracks could only exist where the dinosaur wandered across a surface landscape.What other explanation is there for what is seen?

Geomorphology - Wikipedia (I imagine the white background is bad for your eyes - Sorry):

quote:

---

Geomorphology (from Greek: γῆ, g, "earth"; μορφή, morphḗ, "form"; and λόγος, lgos, "study") is the scientific study of the origin and evolution of topographic and bathymetric features created by physical, chemical or biological processes operating at or near the Earth's surface. Geomorphologists seek to understand why landscapes look the way they do, to understand landform history and dynamics and to predict changes through a combination of field observations, physical experiments and numerical modeling.

---

Much more there.The surface and the near surface, to a lesser or greater degree, are continuously being modified. Whatever survives to be buried deeper has a chance to be lithified into rock.That's all for now.Moose