Summations Only

Obfuscating pseudoplausible nonsense.
Time for a break.

Who said anything about it having to remain at the surface? What it has to do is fit into the stack at the point where we see it now, wherever it is exposed, on top of the right rock, beneath the right rock. Good grief how much clearer can I be that that's what I'm talking about? IT HAS TO BE WHAT WE SEE IN THE STRATA. If the rock for this particular time period is sandstone and the next time period up is limestone right on top of the sandstone then there can't be something in between, there has to be sandstone with limestone on top of it. Then read what I wrote to edge. Perhaps I made it clearer there.

The paragraph I added was not a response to your comment about Steno's law; I had already responded to that by simply saying I believed the unconformity occurred after both upper and lower strata were in place. You didn't take that as a response and went on about how what I believe doesn't matter and I just gave up.I'm still in given-up mode with respect to the whole discussion. Miscommunications are the rule in this discussion and yet I can't even say that without being contradicted.Percy keeps raising substantive issues and then saying I'm not allowed to respond to them.I am not up to dealing with all this right now. Every post has things I need to correct and my feeling right now based on experience is that's a lost cause. I usually get a second wind eventually but not yet.By the way I can't look at your maps. My eyes can't handle glare these days and those are blinding. Too bad because I'd like to be able to see them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why oh why is this so difficult? "It has to be what we see in the strata" means "it has to be what we see in the strata." If we see sandstone the rock has to end up as sandstone; if limestone as limestone; if shale then shale; if gravel with silt, diamonds and popcorn, then gravel with silt, diamonds and popcorn. WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT THIS? No, but I should be clearer about that I guess. Each time period is represented by one landscape but can be represented by many different sediments/rocks. (But sometimes only one rock: Grand Canyon Redwall limestone=Mississippian.) When I'm talking about what we see in the strata I mean what we see in the strata, kinds of rocks in the order we find them. However, since I'm also talking about how we get from a landscape to the rocks that occur in a particular time period I guess I need to remember to say that.abe: In fact you did just make me aware that I can't talk about just one rack undergoing lithification under deep sediment because in most cases there are a number of rocks associated with the one landscape for that time period. So I suppose there has to be a stack of sediments representing each rock in the series for a particular time period. ./abe I don't talk about the Flood unless I say I'm talking about the Flood. Just about everything I have to say on this subject is an attempt to figure out the order of events that would have to have occurred for a landscape associated with a particular time period/rock layer/rock formation/series of rocks to end up as that rock layer/rock formation/series of rocks as we see them in the geo column/strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

For purposes of this discussion why would it matter how pure the sediment/rock is? In fact for purposes of most discussions why would it matter? The rocks are labeled according to their predominant type: Coconino SANDSTONE, Tapeats SANDSTONE, Hermit SHALE, Redwall LIMESTONE, Kaibab LIMESTONE. What difference does it make if they aren't pure? In any case when I say the rocks have to end up as what we see in the strata they have to be those rocks exactly as what we see in the strata.

I was merely referring to those illustrations given for a particular time period, as I posted in Message 333. They represent the whole time period, one illustration for the whole time period. You are right it's a lot more complicated than that. So now it's a landscape for a rock and more than one for time periods that are represented by many rocks.I added an edit to that post by the way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Note: ABE added at bottom. The point was that as everybody is talking about piling the sediments on very deep to create the rock it seems to be forgotten that the rock has to end up in the geological column as we see it. If there are many rocks in a time period then there have to be that many sedimentary depositions one on top of another that are getting lithified, and that would require a great depth of sediment on top of those too. Which then either has to be eroded away so that only the rocks in the strata are left, or has to be the particular sediments to be incorporated into the next series of landscapes/sediments/rocks representing the next time period in the strata. You need the sediment to allow the lower sediment to lithify but you also somehow need to account for ALL the sediment in relation to the geo column. It sounds to me like it's getting more physically impossible with each new requirement.ABE: Further complicated by the fact that living creatures are making the series of landscapes their home, some in a desert, some in a shallow sea, etc., which raises the question how the marine creatures can live when the landscape changes to a desert and what the forest creatures do to survive when the landscape becomes a shallow sea or a desert. Not to mention the requirement that the lithified sediments end up as quite flat and straight one on top of another in some cases covering a huge area as well./ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I said a while back that I wanted to go through some posts starting with this one so I guess I'll try.I'm glad you agree that I said something "clear, straightforward and sensible" in that paragraph because the whole point was to prove that I do understand a lot of how geology works.The questions you say show a lack of understanding are mostly my attempts to get at particular observations about the relation between the rocks and the landscapes we are discussing. Some of them are rather klutzy questions I agree, but then without tracking down the context of all of them I don't even know what I was getting at either. However, I think the loud complaints about my lack of understanding come from that sort of effort, not from a lack of understanding of geology.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Thank you for that page, I think it will be helpful. But I do have to say that it's all about what is observed now, and I nave no reason to argue with any of that. I'm not sure it can explain what I'm trying to explain though.What I'm trying to deal with is how the strata formed, and I always have to refer to the Grand Canyon walls for what I mean by that -- the deep stack of sedimentary rocks piled one on top of another looking to my eye so very straight and flat. Yes, in some cases even up very close, even knife-edge sharp up close in some places.I understand the idea that sediments/landscapes got stacked up and eventually lithified, but my impression is that this doesn't really work as an explanation for how the geological column formed, meaning again the stack of flat rocks, the strata. I'm hoping to get enough energy to take another run at it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.