Summations Only

Where did I say the landscapes are Faith?The landscapes are exactly where they always have been and always will be, and that is either on or near the surface of the land or in the water.But that surface is also constantly changing, parts being eroded away, other parts being covered. What we see in the geology of a location is examples showing us what the landscape looked like when that part, that sample was the surface.Faith, it really is that simple.Boop-Boop Dit-Tem Dot-Tem What-Em Chu! Boop-Boop Dit-Tem Dot-Tem What-Em Chu! Boop-Boop Dit-Tem Dot-Tem What-Em Chu! and they swam and they swam right over the dam.

Rock forms below the surface where there is pressure. The top surface cannot become rock while it is still the stop surface. Accordingly, the soil on top never becomes rock while until it is under the surface. Not an issue.Erosion can indeed produce a rock surface which is no longer a habitat. So what? Aren't there large uninhabitable surfaces now?

I did not say that rock can form on the surface. I've never said that and would not say it. It would have to be buried to become rock. Why you would imagine me saying anything else I have no idea. There are exceptions I think but in this discussion to become rock the sediment has to be buried. So of course it's "not an issue," because I never said it. The sediment burying another landscape either has to become rock or be eroded away.

Not many. Seems stuff lives under almost all conditions. When we look close enough even what seems uninhabitable at first glance usually turns out to be inhabited.

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.

Hi Faith,Your post was specific enough on several points that it is best that I reply directly. Terrestrial. The description in the second paragraph says, "mostly flat plain but with small hills and valleys and plains and forests"), and erosion of marine mountain ranges isn't the significant factor that it is on land. The mountain in the diagram represents a mountain range ("there's a large expanse of low lying area adjacent to a mountain range"). You're describing the point in time when layer C at the top of the mountain range has eroded away and now layer B is exposed and being eroded. As I describe, they "are probably much mixed together due to the irregular forces of erosion and the slow haphazard journey of the sediments from the mountain top to the plain." The landscape won't "come to an end," not even close, though the composition of the sediment may change somewhat. Water and weather is what affects a landscapes livability, not the composition of the sediments. Good. Yes, ignoring migration and evolution, the same types of creatures are still there after several thousand years. They're living on a landscape maybe some 50 feet higher than several thousand years ago. This landscape is very similar to the one where their long ago ancestors roamed. About the "crawly creatures" you mention, I don't know if you mean worms or snakes or spiders or what, but they would still be there. About where you say, "it's all going to end up as a rock," I'll just note that while it might eventually become rock, it might instead become an area of net erosion after the mountain range has eroded away and can no longer provide a net influx of sediment.The key point is that plants will always "just keep growing on the new level of sediment." It doesn't matter how deep the sediments become, plants grow on top. With average sediment accumulation of ¼ inch/year, after ten years the plants will be growing in soil whose surface is 2.5 inches higher. In twenty years they'll be growing in soil whose surface is 5 inches higher. In fifty years they'll be growing in soil whose surface is 12.5 inches higher. In a hundred years they'll be growing in soil whose surface is 25 inches higher. In a thousand years they'll be growing in soil whose surface is 250 inches higher - more than 10 feet higher than a thousand years before.And animals also live on top or within a few feet of the top.The accumulation of sedimentary deposits is on average a slow and gradual process that maintains the livability of a landscape. As sediments become more and more deeply buried the pressure upon them becomes greater and greater. When the pressure becomes great enough they will eventually turn them to rock, but that requires deep burial, certainly more than just a few tens of feet. Sediments buried within five or ten feet of the surface will not turn to rock, and a landscape's surface will almost always be livable, even if it becomes desert. Few land surfaces in the world are completely without life - I doubt there are any. "The environment that's becoming rock"??? Any sediments so deeply buried that they're turning to rock cannot be an environment for most life. The types of species that lived there thousands of years before are still there (again, ignoring evolution and migration). Whether sediments of type A, B or C dominate (more likely a mix, as I described earlier) will little affect the livability of the environment. The landscape's environmental livability will be much more affected by weather and the availability of water, not by what's in the sediments. In a mere thousands of years one wouldn't expect "new kinds of life". With sedimentation rates in the neighborhood of ¼ inches/year, there is nothing happening that any plant or animal would need to escape. The processes that turn sediments into rock happen at depths where nothing is living.

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

Only in situations where there is exposed rock must this be true. Sediment burying a landscape does not have to become rock or be eroded away.Your response ignores the train of the discussion. If you agree that rock forms under the surface, then you should appreciate that your post does not conflict with what I described regarding sedimentation not destroying the landscape. Only surface erosion of the landscape necessarily removes topsoil and exposes rock.Your major difficulty still exists. Namely your inability to address the possibility of sediment slowly accumulating on a landscape without interfering with plants and animals living there. It can become simply more soil onto which living organisms can continue to thrive.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The problem has really been evident from the moment the title to the topic was written.There is no such thing as a geological timescale.There is only time and change and the evidence left by change over great lengths of time. What we see in geology is simply normal processes that work and have been working from the very beginning of the existence of the Earth. What we see in the biological samples are simply the actual evolution of lifeforms since the very beginning of life on the Earth.The geological processes are pretty much the same and the resulting products are very much the same.There is time.There is change.Changes over time leave evidence.

When the soil becomes rock, it is already deep in the earth. Above it we have soil and above that landscapes. Rinse and repeat.Example: Your floors get dusty so you get your broom and sweep it all into the back yard. Tiny amounts, right? What does the "landscape" do? It simply moves upward a millimeter (most likely much less).You do the same thing for a few dozen years and you might add a quarter inch of dust to the back yard, by which time that dust has become soil. What does the "landscape" do? It simply moved upward a quarter inch, but otherwise stayed the same.If the same process repeats for a million years, you have the gradual accumulation of soils, and beneath those soils you may have a gradual lithification process. The "landscape" and all its critters on top couldn't care less. They're (its) going about their business, same as always.And, over time, those critters on top gradually evolve into slightly different critters, and then over more time they evolve into much different critters. And all the while the process of tiny amounts of soil are added, both moving the "landscape" upwards and increasing heat and pressure on lower layers until they become rock.This is a process that has been documented, and can be seen even today in a small scale--your back yard.Do you have some religious reason that is preventing you from accepting this well-documented process? If so, perhaps if you shared it we could better understand where you are coming from.When you attempt to phrase things in scientific terms, all the while coming to conclusions diametrically opposed to what scientists have found, things just get confusing.

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.

The problem is getting from your soil and landscapes to the strata that is the starting point of all this pondering. If the soil above the rock is not represented in the strata then it's going to have to get eroded away before the next rock is established above the one you mention that is deep in the earth. You can start from the landscapes and get any old sequence of strata you like, but the problem here is to see how the strata we've actually got was formed by the events supposed for them: particular depositional environments for particular rocks have to be considered, and then their burial and lithification, but all in the right order so that you end up with the given strata that is the basis for the problem here.So, this soil is not destined to become part of the strata unless it's also a landscape or depositional environment, and since you contrast it with landscapes above it, apparently it isn't. Therefore it will have to be eroded away before the landscapes (plural) you say are above it take their place as rocks in the strata. Have you made provision for the timing of all this? The consequences of each step? It doesn't sound like it. So you've got these landscapes, plural, above this soil -- which of course must represent rocks in the particular stack of strata that is the launching point of this problem. But more than one at once? Not likely. One landscape or depositional environment to a rock, after all, each representing a rock in the strata that launched the problem, at a particular level, between particular other rocks, identified with a particular time period according to the Geo Timescale.You also have to take into account that the critters are fossilized in particular rocks in this particular strata. They can't just roam around from one level to another, they have to stay in their own time period. But see, you aren't thinking about any of this. You think you can describe a general series of events that will do for any situation, but you can't. This is like a puzzle: you have to get the landscapes, the processes of burial and lithification into rocks, all accomplished in a particular order so that they end up as the strata that is the problem being posed: they have to become the particular rocks made of particular sediments, identified as representing particular depositional environments, containing particular fossils and no others, so that ALL the processes you are describing are not willy-nilly but precisely arranged to construct a very particular stack of strata. The question I've been asking is, how do you get from the supposed depositional environments or landscapes, to the particular stack of rocks Geology says represent them? You've got the rocks, those are the given, you have to show how they could have formed from a series of depositional environments understood to have existed on the very spot where the rocks that represent them now sit, with the particular creatures living in that environment that the fossils in the rock are interpreted to have inhabited at that time. When I try to solve the puzzle I run into all kinds of barriers. You and others just make up any old general sequence of soil deposition, burial and so on that has nothing to do with the actual problem as posed and of course you encounter no barriers.Nothing about this is "well documented." I've never seen this puzzle or problem posed before and unless I've missed it nobody here has addressed it either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As well as I'm able I've been sticking to the time factor defined by Geology for the formation of a stack of strata out of "depositional landscapes." I'm not using any other time factor than the Geo Timescale that is assigned to the fossil record within the rocks.Percy, however, limited his example to ten thousand years so I went with his number for the sake of consistency in trying to discuss that example. Yes but I'm not discussing any of that here. I'm attempting to discuss ONLY the strata and how they could have formed out of the depositional environments you all impute to them, and within the time spans you impute to them. If we were discussing the Flood I would answer you in terms of the Flood, since I certainly include mountain-0building within its time frame, but I am not discussing the Flood, I am TRYING to discuss the Geological theory about the formation of the strata from depositional environments or landscapes It has nothing to do with the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

...the problem here is to see how the strata we've actually got was formed by the events supposed for them: particular depositional environments for particular rocks have to be considered, and then their burial and lithification, but all in the right order so that you end up with the given strata that is the basis for the problem here.

---

If that is the problem, why have you been ignoring it all through this thread ? The only way to talk about the strata we've actually got is to talk about the strata that we have actually got i.e. real examples, and you refuse to do that.

quote:

---

So, this soil is not destined to become part of the strata unless it's also a landscape or depositional environment, and since you contrast it with landscapes above it, apparently it isn't.

---

That's just weird. Coyote is talking about material that is in the process of lithified and you think that makes it unlikely to be lithified ?

quote:

---

Therefore it will have to be eroded away before the landscapes (plural) you say are above it take their place as rocks in the strata

---

This makes no sense at all. Having assumed for no sensible reason that the material that is being lithified won't become lithified you then assume that it would somehow get eroded away without the material above it being removed.Faith you really need to take a step back and really think about things. I know that you don't like accepting that your ideas are wrong but you really have been spouting too much nonsense in this thread.