Summations Only

I shouldn't have been so definite about how only what's in the rock matters. Certainly what's in the landscape matters.But the problem I was objecting to was that you can't just identify what's in the landscape without first of all noting what's in the rock, because it's the rock that determines what needs to be in the landscape. Just giving a list of elements you expect to find in the landscape misses the point that it's what's in the rock that dictates what has to be there.I hope that's clearer.

What rock are you talking about? The rock that came before the landscape may have nothing to do with the landscape, and what came afterward may be completely different as well. The landscape, as we are defining it now, could be different from both. You could have a coal bed sitting on granite bedrock and overlain by a transgressive marine sandstone."Noting what's in the rock" is not relevant at all. We are able to tell what the landcaspe was like because there are some places (basins) where lake sediments or sand bars, etc. are preserved. Not really.

THE ONLY ROCK I'M EVER TALKING ABOUT HERE IS ANY ROCK IN A STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN IN WHICH YOU GEOLOGIST TYPES THINK YOU FIND CLUES TO AN ANCIENT ENVIRONMENT OF WHICH THE ROCK IS THE FINAL RESULT AND EVIDENCE. THESE ROCKS ARE LAYERS IN A STACK OF ROCKS -- SEE GRAND CANYON FOR EXAMPLE -- THAT ARE FLAT ENOUGH TO DESERVE THAT TERM WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, AND EXTEND ENOUGH OF A DISTANCE, EVEN THE TERRESTRIAL ROCKS, TO BE DESCRIBED AS EXTENSIVE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, GENERALLY CONTAIN FOSSILS THAT YOU INTERPRET AS HAVING LIVED IN THE ENVIRONMENT YOU THINK THE ROCK INDICATES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. IF YOU JUST WANT ME TO TEAR OUT MY HAIR AND DISAPPEAR MAYBE THAT'S NOT A BAD IDEA.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All rocks are part of a stratigraphic column.

THEN GIVE ME THE TERM FOR WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS ONLY THE FLAT LAYERS SUCH AS WE SEE IN THE GS. YOUR NOT KNOWING WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT BY NOW IS CRAZINESS. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

THEN GIVE ME THE TERM FOR WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT...Nonsense.You are approaching all of these scientific threads with the idea that scripture is the only thing that matters, and that scientific evidence that contradicts scripture is wrong.And no evidence we provide will change any of that. So, you're talking nonsense.You really should stop pretending you are doing science--you are doing the exact opposite and those of us here who have studied science know it.You really should start each of your posts with, "I believe..."You would gain a lot of respect that way.When you pretend that what you post is supported by science, which it is not, it may make you feel better, but it really is the equivalent of claiming the moon is made of green cheese.Evidence really is important!If you have any, let's see it. Otherwise you really should start each of your posts with, "I believe..."

quote:

---

the reason for thinking the sediments would have to be eroded away -- WHICH IS SOMETHING I'VE SAID MANY TIMES ALREADY IN OTHER CONTEXTS HERE-- is that they are not in the stratigraphic column from which these scenarios originate,

---

That is a rather strange assumption. They may or may not be - but that is something that the scenario itself will determine (since we are not discussing a real example).

quote:

---

they are just plain sediments added to provide for the lithification of the original environment, and not an environment in itself with fossils which is what we find in the column.

---

And this is just a weird misunderstanding. Of course they form an environment - with the rate of deposition, how could they not ? Maybe if you dumped several feet of sediment all at once you could say something like that.Also, they are not deposited just to "provide for lithification" - Stile has chosen a scenario where this deposition happens because he is describing a scenario where the lithification occurs, and that is the closest to what you are describing.Now maybe you are thinking - again - that nature only does what you think necessary and that "providing for lithification" is nature's purpose in depositing those sediments. If you think so, you are wrong.Or maybe you think that they only serve that purpose in Stile's scenario and therefore Stile must choose a scenario where they are removed. But that would be both incorrect and irrelevant. Stile should be attempting to represent what occurs in nature and therefore should choose a likely scenario rather than one restricted by ideas of narrative purpose.I think that the problem - the real problem in this discussion - is that you are far too determined to vindicate your own ideas to wait for understanding. Your "problems" are riddled with assumptions that range from being questionable to obvious falsehoods. And that is why you are wrong to imagine that they are inevitable to anyone who does not share your mindset.Indeed, your "puzzle" about where the inhabitants of the landscape go is a prime example - it is so obviously a peripheral issue that should be set aside until you understand what is going on, it is obviously badly confused and it is rather clearly an attempt to rescue an earlier argument (which seems to be the main cause of the confusion, and why the confusion is so strangely resistant to correction)

THE TERM FOR WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS "GEOLOGICAL COLUMN," FOUND IN ALL KINDS OF GEOLOGY TEXTS MEANING EXACTLY WHAT I USE IT TO MEAN. EDGE SAID THE CORRECT TERM IS STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN SO I'VE BEEN USING THAT. NOW HE SAYS STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN REFERS TO ALL ROCKS, NOT JUST THE SEDIMENTARY STRATA. THIS IS SOME KIND OF UNCONSCIONABLE RUN-AROUND.I AM NOT READING ANYTHING PAULK WRITES BUT IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH ACCIDENTAL READING TO SEE HE'S SAYING NOTHING USEFUL. NEITHER IS COYOTE, OF COURSE, WHO THINKS STRATA IS A BIBLICAL TERM OR SOME SUCH NONSENSE. I'VE SAID WHAT I MEAN AND I'VE SAID IT CLEARLY ENOUGH. TAKE IT AS IS OR SHUT DOWN THE THREAD. I DO KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO LET ME DO IT. THAT MAY BE MY FAULT TO SOME EXTENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A NORMAL GEOLOGICAL TOPIC.I'LL STICK AROUND TO SEE WHAT STILE HAS TO SAY BUT AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES ALREADY I THINK THIS THREAD HAS BEEN AT AN END FOR A LONG TIME.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

THE TERM FOR WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS "GEOLOGICAL COLUMN," FOUND IN ALL KINDS OF GEOLOGY TEXTS MEANING EXACTLY WHAT I USE IT TO MEAN. EDGE SAID THE CORRECT TERM IS STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN SO I'VE BEEN USING THAT. NOW HE SAYS STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN REFERS TO ALL ROCKS, NOT JUST THE SEDIMENTARY STRATA. THIS IS SOME KIND OF UNCONSCIONABLE RUN-AROUND.

---

Faith, pointing out the truth is not "SOME KIND OF UNCONSCIONABLE RUN-AROUND"
Writing in all-caps will not change that.

quote:

---

AM NOT READING ANYTHING PAULK WRITES BUT IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH ACCIDENTAL READING TO SEE HE'S SAYING NOTHING USEFUL.

---

It explains the major problem with this thread - and it would be very useful to you to understand it.

quote:

---

I DO KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO LET ME DO IT. THAT MAY BE MY FAULT TO SOME EXTENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A NORMAL GEOLOGICAL TOPIC

---

It is in fact almost entirely your fault. See my previous post.

quote:

---

I'LL STICK AROUND TO SEE WHAT STILE HAS TO SAY BUT AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES ALREADY I THINK THIS THREAD HAS BEEN AT AN END FOR A LONG TIM

---

Since your entire case rests on aggressive misunderstandings that you refuse to correct it is hard to see any other outcome. If you correct your behaviour maybe things could be different.

YOU HAVE NOT SAID ONE TRUE THING ON THIS THREAD. I'VE SAID WHAT I MEAN AND I'VE SAID IT CLEARLY ENOUGH. TAKE IT AS IS OR SHUT DOWN THE THREAD.

quote:

---

YOU HAVE NOT SAID ONE TRUE THING ON THIS THREAD.

---

Yawn. You can't shout down the truth. Not here.

quote:

---

I'VE SAID WHAT I MEAN AND I'VE SAID IT CLEARLY ENOUGH. TAKE IT AS IS OR SHUT DOWN THE THREAD.

---

OK, so you can't think about the processes that produced the strata, because every time you try you find yourself making up spurious "problems". That really is not much of an argument that you are correct, nor is it reasonable for you to expect others to have the same problem.You cannot hope to come up with real problems with an inadequate understanding. Just as you misread the Triassic map because of your lack of understanding and an unwillingness to consider the fact that you were very likely mistaken (and no, I am not referring to your poor eyesight). Learn a little humility, learn to be intellectually honest, respect the limits of your knowledge, recognise your biases. Do that and you might just get to be a more effective debater here - instead of trying to shout down people who dare to disagree with your mistaken opinions.

Just a few today:

1. Please leave the analyses of who's to blame for end-of-thread summaries, or better, don't play the blame game at all. Keep your attention on the topic.
   ​
2. I felt that Edge's Message 1007, while not untrue, left the impression that the scenario being pushed by Stile and myself as a way of illustrating why an landscape of net deposition doesn't become uninhabitable can't happen:
   ​
   edge in Message 1007 writes:

   ​

   What rock are you talking about? The rock that came before the landscape may have nothing to do with the landscape, and what came afterward may be completely different as well. The landscape, as we are defining it now, could be different from both. You could have a coal bed sitting on granite bedrock and overlain by a transgressive marine sandstone.

   ​

   "Noting what's in the rock" is not relevant at all.
   ​
   That last sentence seemed particularly likely to mislead readers. What we find in the strata is how we reconstruct what landscapes must have been like, whether deserts or lakes or lagoons or swamps or beaches or coastal shores or shallow seas and so forth. Sometimes the strata do not contain enough evidence to do this, and sometimes they do. Stile's scenario is currently focused on lithification, but he'll eventually address how evidence of what the landscape looked like becomes buried and preserved.
   ​
3. In Message 1012 PaulK addressed Faith's claim that the upper layers in Stile's scenario were only present to provide pressure to lithify the lower layers and so would have to be eroded away. I think it could help us develop a better understanding of why Faith thinks this if she could reply to this message.

I won't reply to any of PaulK's messages since all he does is criticize me personally and never understands anything I'm saying. In fact he should be banned from the thread.I'll answer the question AGAIN when Stile comes back.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This from your Message 936 is one example: Rephrasing this, you seem to be saying that the surface environment is always an eroded surface. But only an unconformity can be an eroded surface. Any paleosols recorded in a stratigraphic column must have been been net depositional surfaces for considerable periods, else paleosols wouldn't exist.Thanks for this illustration: Now I understand what you meant by soils accumulating from the top and bottom of the profile. Soil layers grind slowly across underlying strata like glaciers down a mountain rangeLooking about me here in New Hampshire, if the trees on our hillsides are any indicator, our hills don't do this on any visible scale. The trees on our hillsides all grow straight and true, including the fast growing white pine. I assume this is because our soil is compacted and rocky and full of clays. To plant a shrub near the woods around the perimeter of the yard it takes a pick to get into the soil - shovels won't do it. And be prepared to abandon the hole because of what starts as a small rock but with more digging becomes immense. When we built our house we had a pile of rocks from the peripheral landscaping that we piled into a mound ten feet in diameter and four feet high. Our neighbor later used them to help build a stone wall, and of course most of New England is full of stone walls running through woods that were once fields and pastures.What puts so much rock and clay into the soil? We were glaciated for a considerable time, maybe a factor? If you're kind enough to answer this, probably better addressed over at How do geologist know what they are looking at really is what they say it is?.

The thread is still trying to understand why you believe regions of net deposition or erosion must become uninhabitable.