Summations Only

Maybe you could add some more detail. I have a feeling that you are leaving out some steps, one of them being marine transgressions across the continent that I have been trying to demonstrate. Why not? Just saying that something is impossible is not evidence or even reasoning.If I have a steady rain of sediments in an offshore area and then the climate changes or I have a cloud of ash fall in the area, why would the layers not be straight and flat? Okay, so the plants and animals that died there are covered by sediments and preserved. The ones that lived would simply die later and be preserved in later sediments. This doesn't seem like a hard concept to me. Perhaps you can explain why it is impossible.

I sense your frustration, but fail to see why you don't do something about it. You just keep repeating the same phrases and complaints. You're not getting it, Faith.We have done what you suggest.The real problem seems to be something basic that eludes you. This is nonsense.The whole issue is about a series of processes that we've gone through multiple times. I think it's pretty clear that:

There is a reason for this. Do you want to discuss it or just shut down the conversation?

The point here is that the environment changed. It was subaerial prior to, and after, the Cretaceous Seaways existed.Here is where you can view an interesting animation from the early Mesozoic to the present:Page not found | GeosciencesUnder 'Animations', click on the North American Paleogeography and bring up the slide show that goes from 244ma to 0ma. The thing for Faith to remember is that this is based on evidence from actual geological observations, not a dreamscape. The presence of sequoia tree fossils suggests that the area was at a much lower elevation than where it is now. So, somewhere between 35ma and recent time the area has been uplifted about 8000 feet. This probably happened during the latest Rocky Mountain orogeny that resulted in the high peaks of Colorado. Some people have proposed that the tops of the 14k ft peaks are remnants of an old peneplain that was near sea level only a few million years ago.Here is a generalized diagram of regional transgression sequences in North America. It is similar to the one I showed earlier for just W. Illinois and might be easier to understand: Basically, the center of the diagram represents the center of the continent and the blue areas represent the extent of the seas covering the continent. Each one of the little blue cuts in toward the continent represent a transgression. Obviously, some transgressions are major and others are more or less insignificant at this scale. The most significant transgressions are recognized as continental in scale and have names such as Sauk, Tippecanoe, etc. These are termed 'cratonic sequences': Cratonic sequence - WikipediaI'm sure that the minor transgressions are schematic since the are probably minor and local in nature. However, the major ones are documented by a huge amount of mapping and stratigraphic/paleontological studies.So, as indicated, the blue areas are times of sedimentary deposition and the yellow areas are times of erosion of the continent. There is a lot of information packed into such a simple diagram and, if you know some things about geology, it gives a possible explanation for some of the things that we see.One of those things is the superposition of strata and depositional environments in the geological record.

I think that one of the problems with this thread is that Faith is so wedded to the idea that all life was eradicated at once on a young earth, that none of what we say makes sense.I'm not sure what to do about that. Perhaps we could create a chronological list of events that we see in the geological record, as Percy suggests, and Faith could just read along for a while as we continue the discussion. It might be productive but time-consuming. It certainly would take some work and a great deal of back and forth. I'm afraid that some would lose interest.

Okay, I cheated: I went to Wikipedia first. My concept was pretty much correct, but some interesting details emerged from Wiki.Peneplain - WikipediaPeneplain, as the name implies is an 'almost-plain'. It occurs as the near complete erosion of a land surface to base level (usually sealevel). Usually, this happens by way of fluvial erosion, but I wonder if it would include glacial planing of the land surface as well. Wiki does mention parts of the Baltic Shield as being a peneplain ...I guess the question is mechanism. How do rivers create plains?To me it is a matter of low-relief and meandering streams. If you will notice, over time, meandering streams are both erosional and depositional. This is my opinion, but I think that meandering streams cut into the outer turn and then redeposit sediment farther down stream as sand bars, or eventually into river deltas and the sea. In all cases, material is moved to a lower elevation. The result would be to form buttes which eventually would be eroded as well, finally resulting in a plains-type geomorphology.The interesting thing is that meandering streams cannot cut below base level.This means that erosion stops at a flat surface at sea level.Okay, what if the Kaibab Limestone were flat lying, at sea level, prior to uplift of the Colorado Plateau? Over time, and with meandering streams (where have we heard about meandering streams in the Grand Canyon area before?), would not all of the higher formations (softer formations, by the way) be denuded over large regions? Perhaps leaving buttes and mesas of Mesozoic sandstones in some places?Just some food for thought ...

Actually, wrong. A landscape would be the topography on the surface of the earth. No, they are recorded in the rock record.Just like these examples where the previous topography is depicted by a bold black line: Unconformity - WikipediaAnd yes, they are called unconformities. They are not the rock, they are structures within the rocks.This is pretty standard and basic geology.

Faith, simple sentences work well when you are trying to explain things.Okay, now one thought at at time: No, they got buried because they were dead. Correct, sediments are not landscapes.Burial preserves topography.Or the creatures simply avoided burial by not dying. Yes, they would continue living (as they do now when they move out of an area), or they would die and be buried in the new location. No, they characterize a depositional environment. I dont' see why not. Look at my previous post. And I don't see how you could avoid it. Burying layered sediments is common in the geological record. Or it could, in turn be buried by more sediments.And no, it doesn't have to be 'plain sediment'. Are you saying that the sediments will look different from the rock that they later form?In that case, YES! Sure, when a sediment is buried with any depth it is no longer a habitat for the creatures of the habitable landscape. The only creatures remaining are dead.

It is because you were not being clear. I thought you were saying the same thing. Yes, this sentence makes sense.

Unfortunately, yes, Faith rejects the time factor. She does not have millions of years, or even ten thousand years.To her, everything died at once on the planet.Only four thousand years ago.There is no time for mountain building, much less the erosion of mountains. There is no time ...No time for changing environments, or revolving doors ...She's got no time.It is written ...Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I believe we are treading ground James Hutton did over 200 years ago here. He noticed that soil was continually creeping downhill into streams to be eventually washed into the sea.And yet, there was always soil on the hill.Such a simple observation and yet it led to the idea that the earth is continually renewing itself and that these processes must have gone on for time immemorial.In my effort to figure out what Faith is trying to express, I'm wondering does she understand that a landscape is cut into older rocks. It is not a part of the older rocks but a temporary location for life to exist and also setting the table for new sediments (later to become rocks) to be deposited, thereby preserving the landscape as a primary sedimentary feature.Here is an example (schematic cross-section) of a landscape that I referred to earlier: (By דקי - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, File:Disconformity.jpg - Wikimedia Commons)The paleolancscape is the bold line in the middle of the diagram. Yes, it's an unconformity, cut into older sediments and then buried by later sedimentation.At one time that surface was exposed to erosion. It was a landcape on which forests could have grown and animals may have lived.But over time it was inundated once again by the sea and buried. The soils were stripped and the forests washed away. The ecosystem moved inland to higher ground.The fossils in the lower beds are of an older time than the landscape. And the fossil in the upper beds are of a younger time.We literally don't know how long the landscape existed other than that it was a period 'between the two rock ages', or even how many landscapes may have existed during that interval. However, if there were a lake bottom or river deposit on top of the lower beds, and older than the upper beds, we would have a snapshot of what life was like on that landscape at one time.These things are not easy to wrap one's mind around, but with time, you can work out the whole sequence. The point is that the landscape (topography) represents a time period within the geological record.It is not a rock. It is a surface cut into the rock. It is a gap in the sedimentary record of that area. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Not exactly, but getting better.The landscape is actually a gap in deposition. It does not represent a sedimentary environment, other than if there might be rivers or lakes or other subaerial deposits. That is exactly what we are saying.Consequently, a landscape (topography, terrain, etc.) is not a rock. See my previous post. I have spent inordinate time trying to understand your issues and think I have covered this problem. Once again, I refer to my last post of a few minutes ago.The topography is not a rock. It is a surface cut into older rock. Younger rock (sediments) will bury that surface and preserve it as a discontinuity in sedimentation.

That was not my point.My point was that you are devoted to the idea that there was one sedimentary event, one extinction event, one igneous event and one mountain building event.This is forced by denial of deep time and complete submission to a biblical myth. You cannot conceive of multiple 'landscapes' in the record.

A rock does not 'have' a landscape'. Just trying to figure out why you are having such a problem.ETA: I would think that you would at least try to cooperate a little bit. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I have always said that landscape is preserved in the rock. Like a fossil or a crack. Actually, the landscape is what happened to the rock.But it wasn't just one rock, either. A landscape would cut across many rocks if it were an angular unconformity, for instance. Actually, no. The rock pre-exists the landscape. The landscape is cut into the rock. Most unconformities tell us nothing about what the land looked like (unless there are local basins that have been preserved). Sometimes true soil is preserved, as under a volcanic rock, but these are not large parts of the geological record.The overlying rock is younger than the landscape because it buries the landscape. Well, yes. That's what erosion does. You are free to believe what you want. However, you will continue to be frustrated in any conversation with science-minded people. In general, it doesn't represent a depositional environment. It represents an environment. An erosional one. As I said, you are free to believe what you want. But you will continue to be angry and frustrated.ETA: As I have requested of you before, please read my post #861. I have tried to spell things out a basically as possible. Edited by edge, : No reason given.