Summations Only

Then you shouldn't be telling us all of the things that geologists have wrong.Especially when they are not true.

I'm not sure where this is the case, however, I will say that if erosion were allowed to continue to completion, all rocks above sea level would be planed off. Except for sea level changes and geotectonics, this would happen, though the time would be beyond human time frames. And this happens in places where erosion is exceedingly slow or has temporarily stopped (I'm talking in a geological time frame here). Soils are temporary features on the earth, just as lakes, rivers and mountains are. I'm sure that is the case. That's why we've discussed the underlying theme of a single catastrophic flood event in Faith's argument, though she denies it vehemently. Certainly. Okay, I was not clear. Soil can grow by addition of material at the land surface (accumulation of organic and airborne mineral materials), but also by growing deeper into the underlying bedrock. Most certainly. However, I will admit that it is confusing. This is a question for Faith. Over time a species may migrate without notice to any individual. In the meantime individuals are dying in their environment all along. Well, that's a little harder to imagine unless there is a major change of other factors such as climate. Nevertheless, that would still allow a species to migrate. Even humans do it.Here is another diagram showing how soil forms and erodes: This was one of Hutton's early dilemmas. Clearly, soil was moving toward the stream, but the hills never ran out of soil.And, pertinent to our discussion, it shows how soil formation and transport is part of erosion. Now, if here were not slope, then there would be little transport and soil would accumulate upward due to accumulation. This would be the situation that you are pushing. If the situation changed due to uplift or stream formation, then the land would be rejuvenated (as per my previous image) and net erosion would start (again?).

Uh, oh ... transported fossils ...This may be too much for creationists to handle.

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.

All rocks are part of a stratigraphic column.

That was a difficult post. I really didn't know what rocks Faith was talking about and I doubted that they would exist.As I have said, even in an erosional (say, continental) environment there are basins which have net deposition. That is how we preserve the 'landscapes' that Faith is so interested in and terrestrial fossils. For instance, Lake Uinta in western Colorado and Utah collected sediments for about 5 million years in the Eocene.At the same time, on a geological scale, all continental rocks above sea level are eventually subject to erosion. Those sediments are now being eroded as this picture shows: Fortunately, this does not happen because of geotectonics and fluctuating sea level. Okay, sure. I was referring back to my question about 'what rocks?' in that same post.

In this case I think I was referring to the examples of unconformities in some of the diagrams.[ETA: Either that or I'm just such an old hard-rocker that dirt just doesn't deserve mention ...]I have a tendency to think of landscape as topography. The soils creep when on a slope. Most of us have seen the effects, as in tilted trees and fence posts, etc. That means that the soil is moving. If there is no slope there may be no creep. In brief, chemical weathering of minerals. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Okay, then, you are talking about certain rocks that preserve the terrestrial environment. Is that correct?In that case, what other evidence is there of the environment that existed at one time? Actually not. The Grand Canyon does not expose lake sediments or river sediments where your landscape environments would be preserved.So now you are talking about something else. Actually, I love the term. It includes virtually all sedimentary rocks.So, now you are talking about all sedimentary rocks. Where else would they have lived? And if they lived, they must also have died and left remains in that rock. I don't suppose you'd entertain the thought that maybe you should investigate some of our examples, would you?Faith, you have all of the tools you need to figure this out. You just have to rid yourself of the rigid dogma of YECism. You may be stubborn, but I don't think you are stupid. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

One of the issues we keep coming back to here is the straight and flat nature of 'strata' in the usage of Faith. Apparently, to be 'strata' a sedimentary formation needs to have sharp, smooth and planar contacts and be continental in scale. The formations of the Grand Canyon are the prime example of exposed strata.In that case, I submit that the Coconino does not classify as 'strata'.From Wikipedia (Coconino Sandstone - Wikipedia): The thickness is, therefor, highly variable. How does that happen to a stratum that has flat contacts? It also looks like the Coconino thins out to the extent that it eventually disappears to the east and west.So, the Coconino cannot be classified as 'strata' by Faith, as near as I can tell.Furthermore: Now that's weird. It looks like the Toroweap isn't a stratum, either since it is not found everywhere in its region.It's starting to look like the Grand Canyon is not such an exemplar of 'strata'.Or could it be that Faith's definition of 'stratum' is just plain wrong?Nah!!Edited by edge, : No reason given.

And I'm sure that it's everyone else's fault.I thought you were talking about the 'landscape' preserved in terrestrial deposits that tell us something about the conditions and habitat that existed at that time. Please tell my why lake sediments, or sand dunes, or swamps would not do that.As far as the definition of stratum goes, I have never said that 'strata' include non-layered rocks. They would. however. include sand dunes, coal swamps, lake sediments and sand bars.

Then please explain how tracks would be preserved in the middle of a global flood. So, that's your argument? It's 'some kind of illusion'? This need clarification. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Why is that? This is just an assertion. What do you mean? And yet, there they are.

So then, you ARE talking about the flood myth.And it DOES affect your interpretations.

So then, it's just a matter of 'flat-out' denial for Faith.Fine with me.I'm glad we got that cleared up.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Nonsense, I have never told anyone what they should believe. Why must it be 'proved' to you?Now it sounds like you are telling me what I should believe. Again, nonsense. If someone came along with a better idea than evolution that explains the fact, I would embrace it so fast it would make your head spin.Can you say the same thing about your beliefs?

Well, if things are that far off, then it shouldn't work. At least not in my world. You are being silly here.