Summations Only

And guess what Faith?Every geological column does show what DID happen to a particular environment and what it shows is evolution from one environment to a new environment; from terrestrial to marine and back to terrestrial with millions of years of material missing and still life going on.There is no mystery, no puzzle and the only fantasy is that there is a puzzle.

"Changing landscapes don't become uninhabitable" is a general statement that totally misses the point of what I'm doing. In the particular circumstances of how an environment ends up as a rock in the stratigraphic column it seems to be the case that it must become uninhabitable, as I've shown. Please deal with the facts as given.

quote:

---

As long as I'm focused on a specific Environment #1 it's not a generality, it's a specific case we can discuss through various changes.

---

But it is not a specific. It is a completely unspecified environment. Which ends up getting buried by something equally unspecified.

quote:

---

Remember, it has to become a rock in a stratigraphic column.

---

Actually you should forget that. It's irrelevant. All that matters is that the surface is buried to the extent that it no longer serves as a habitat to the creatures that used to live on it. Let us not confuse the issue with events that happen long after the important point.

quote:

---

All that matters to my puzzle is what finally appears in the stratigraphic column representing that particular environment

---

That has no relevance to the question of where the creatures went. If you think it does, no wonder you have problems with your argument.

quote:

---

If your environment moves somewhere else it isn't going to show up in the stack of rocks

---

Wrong. And obviously so. If a depositional environment "moves" through the means of a transgression or regression, the sediment it has already deposited is still left behind.

quote:

---

This is way too general.

---

If it is, it is entirely your fault for presenting a completely general situation.

quote:

---

We're talking about a stack of rocks that may cover huge spans of territory, which in itself poses a problem for any possible relocation

---

Not really. We don't have to move everything out. An adequate breeding population of most species will be fine. We can easily afford to lose some species, and many, many individuals.

quote:

---

Again, all that matters to this puzzle is what ends up in the column, not what MIGHT have happened that you have no way of demonstrating.

---

That would be true if we were dealing with a real example. But you chose not to. So what might happen is all that matters. Complaining that I answer the "puzzle" as you posed it is just silly.

quote:

---

Then show this in the result in the column.

---

This is not a real example. There is no column.

quote:

---

But what MIGHT happen isn't going to solve the puzzle

---

It solves the "puzzle" you posed. If you wanted to deal with real examples you should have posed it in terms of a real example. I asked you to do that. You refused.

quote:

---

You have to show what DID happen to a particular environment in the process of becoming a particular rock in the stratigraphic column

---

No. I don't. All I have to do is answer the general question, because that is what your "puzzle" is.

quote:

---

In the process of trying to construct how the environment got to be a rock I ran into the problem that habitat must be lost in that process, which doesn't fit with what Geology has in mind, so I conclude that there is a contradiction here between the theory and the reality.

---

Obviously you have no idea what geology says. Of course geology accepts that habitats are lost. Suggesting otherwise is absurd.

Please stop with the irrelevant generalizations. If you have anything to say that pertains to the situation as I've laid it out, please do, but obviously you don't.

If we look at any geological column it is a record of what happened at the surface when any particular part of the column was at the surface. The actual make up of materials tells us whether it was a marine or terrestrial environment and the biological samples found in the layer tell us what lived at the time, what the average temperatures were as well as other features that described the landscape.The geological evidence shows conclusively that the processes in the past were the same process that go on now but the biological samples show and order evolution of life over time.A great specific example is the middle of what became North America. The geological column shows a terrestrial environment that then became a marine environment that then was raised to once again become a terrestrial environment at more than a mile above sea level. Again what is seen is that the biological samples from each period correspond to the geological evidence.It really is that simple.

All the party line, jar, nothing to do with my puzzle. So far everything you've said is a begging of the question.If there is in fact no way to get from the environment supposed to have existed, based on the clues in the rock as you describe them, to the rock that represents it, without destroying the habitat of the animals that supposedly lived there, that shows a huge disconnect between theory and reality that calls the whole Geological interpretive scheme into question. In fact it shows its utter falseness.The fact is that the stratigraphic column is nothing but a stack of sediments that were laid down as sediments and lithified due to the weight of the whole stack. There were no environments at all. There couldn't have been. That's all a misinterpretation made up out of the stuff in the rocks that is purely accidental. Just overwrought imagination. There was nothing but sediments, now become rocks, no environments, no landscapes, no creatures living in them, just one sediment layered on top of another.Well, you are all driving me to make such a flat statement by refusing to address the terms of the puzzle as I've presented it. We could still try to construct the events as I've asked but if nobody wants to I can always just declare the truth that the whole idea of former environments is a big fat fantasy. All the stuff being mustered in its defense has to do with facts about landscapes that exist now; none of it says anything about any former landscapes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If the creatures' habitat has been destroyed there's no place for them to go. Their habitat is gone, that's the end of it. The question where would they go was rhetorical. There's no place for them to go. You can't turn a habitat into a rock without depriving the inhabitants of their habitat.

In other words, because we HAVE answered your argument as you presented it you are "forced" to claim that all the opposing evidence us a massive coincidence.I guess that is as close to an admission of defeat as we can expect.

Not exactly Faith, rather than showing utter falseness it shows reality.Environments change and are changing constantly. Desertification is going on with crop lands being covered by sand dunes. Areas that were once water are now dry and areas that were recently dry are now under water. Some really large lakes are being formed as glacial ice continues to melt. The middle of the US that was once a sea is now over a mile above sea level. The environments change and the life forms populating the environments also changes. Yes, we know you make that claim but reality refutes your fantasy. Yes, of course. You can declare any silly thing you want. I have always supported your right to believe in silly stuff, Biblical floods and Special Creation and Young Earth. However your beliefs do not relate to reality.The fact is the biological and geological samples do exist and order as you have been shown.Edited by jar, : appalin spallinEdited by jar, : I have always supported your right to believe isn silly stuff, Biblical floods and Special Creation and Young Earth.

Gosh you're good at twisting things. No, all you've given is a bunch of imaginary scenarios, in keeping with the overall imaginary claim of there having been ancient environments where all those rocks in the stratigraphic column now are. Historical Geology is a fine exercise in imagination, but the reality is the rocks are rocks and never were environments.

quote:

---

If the creatures' habitat has been destroyed there's no place for them to go.

---

That is not necessarily true, as i have already explained. And - as I should not need to explain - it is precisely the sort of claim that can be dealt with by offering alternative possibilities.

I guess you just have no idea what the word "reality" means. Too bad, it enables you to make preposterous claims. But all you've done is beg the question, you've never once addressed the problem here.

You have to be able to demonstrate those possibilities, you can't just imagine them into existence. Once the creatures' habitat is gone it's gone. You have to make up some other habitat out of thin air then because all you have in reality is a great expanse of rock.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is of course no such thing as historical geology except in the imagination of those claiming a Young Earth.The reality is that the geological samples exist. The biological samples exist. There is no other possible source for a leaf or spore or seed or tree or animal or critter track than an environment where the critter moved, the animal lived, the tree grew, the leaf fell.It really is that simple.

But the problem exists only in your fantasy Faith. How can we address your imaginations?Edited by jar, : test sig