Summations Only

quote:

---

Gosh you're good at twisting thing

---

Always the same false accusation.

quote:

---

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

---

In fact I offered real possibilities. You cannot honestly claim that transgression and regression in particular are imaginary. Coastlines change in the modern day.And, in fact, such an answer was forced by your presentation of the alleged "puzzle". Was your refusal to deal with real situations a deliberate tactic to allow you to reject any answer as "imaginary" ?

quote:

---

Historical Geology is a fine exercise in imagination, but the reality is the rocks are rocks and never were environments.

---

If you had any argument to support that then you should have produced it.

quote:

---

You have to be able to demonstrate those possibilities, you can't just imagine them into existence.

---

If we were dealing with an actual example that would be appropriate. Since we aren't it is really up to you to give reasons why they are not possible. And I note that you are not even trying.

quote:

---

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.

---

The fact that you keep confusing yourself with irrelevancies despite my repeated warnings is hardly encouraging or helpful to your position.

Denial works well for you, doesn't it?

False accusations are hardly an adequate alternative to substantive posts.I will just take your failure to refute my points as an admission of defeat.

In a way, it is true that the landscape become uninhabitable.However, what actually happens is that the habitat is destroyed by encroaching shoreline erosion. All that is left is the topography, which I have been equating with landscape.I thought that Faith understood Walther's Law, but apparently not. What it says is that regional sedimentary deposits are created by rising and lowering sea levels, so that a particular environment (a beach perhaps) moves across the land creating a sheet-like deposit.

And my answer has always been that it doesn't.The surface environment is not represented by the rocks below it or above it.It is recorded as an eroded surface in the geological record.ETA: Is anyone else not getting this?Some pieces are preserved as lake sediments, sand bars, coal seams, etc., if they are preserved (buried) and not completely eroded away in the subaerial environment. No. The environment is not that of the existing rock. It resides on top of the rock as a land surface. As I have said. Erosional environments still have smaller basins within them collecting sediments that can be preserved by burial.That is why we find dinosaur fossils in stream sediments or sinkholes or swamps. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Nonsense. There is always and has always been land for land creatures and environments for them to live on.This is where I say that you are still enchanted by the notion that all life died in a single event, i.e. the flood. No, see above. We don't turn a habitat into a rock. We preserve a terrain by burial, and if there are pockets that are protected, we can say something directly about that environment. Just look at swamps for instance.

In the current world yes. But your problem is that you assume the environments you see in the rocks are real and behave the way the world behaves today. They aren't true history though; they are just figments of the geological imagination.That other thread jar started is a case in point. I'm sure he means it as some kind of response to this thread, but that's nonsense. You're discussing stuff that anyone can observe today. But it's merely an assumption that it existed in the "time periods" found in the stratigraphic rocks. A perfectly empty assumption that I'm proving false on this thread. Hey just show where they would have gone. Anything you come up with will create more problems though.What I'm "enchanted" by is the fact that there is so much ROCK out there all stacked up in huge slabs. It makes no sense at all on the standard Geological explanation and there is no way to get from those environments to the rock they represent. Oddly enough, although you assume it. It's all assumption. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It really doesn't matter WHERE in the strat column the environment exists or is represented or anything you want to say about it. The point is that you "see" it in the rock, and discussion all along here has placed it "in situ" --on the site of the rocks themselves. It doesn't matter if it's supposed to have been IN the rock or on top of the rock or whatnot, and various posters have disagreed about that, and it's all nitpickery, it's connected with the rock, so the rock is the record of its supposed existence one way or another.You can account for your eroded surface in the rock record by the same means I'm asking that the environments supposedly shown in the rock record can be accounted for. Trace out the events that would have had to happen for it to end up there. Why try to make some kind of exception out of it?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I assume you mean "They aren't TRVE history though..." That is, they don't conform to what you think the bible says.This is one of the silliest of many silly creationist claims of the past decade. Its right up there and pretty much equal to, "You weren't there!"Rather than posting this kind of nonsense, you might take the following into consideration:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to [post] and remove all doubt.

quote:

---

In the current world yes. But your problem is that you assume the environments you see in the rocks are real and behave the way the world behaves today. They aren't true history though; they are just figments of the geological imagination.

---

This begs the question though. If your argument relies on us assuming that we are wrong despite the evidence then you don't have an argument.

quote:

---

That other thread jar started is a case in point. I'm sure he means it as some kind of response to this thread, but that's nonsense. You're discussing stuff that anyone can observe today. But it's merely an assumption that it existed in the "time periods" found in the stratigraphic rocks. A perfectly empty assumption that I'm proving false on this thread.

---

On the contrary, it is valuable information for this thread. If we can explain what is seen as a result of known processes - and geologists certainly can - our views are viable.And I hardly think that your failure to produce any viable argument can be considered as "proving" that you are correct.

quote:

---

What I'm "enchanted" by is the fact that there is so much ROCK out there all stacked up in huge slabs. It makes no sense at all on the standard Geological explanation and there is no way to get from those environments to the rock they represent. Oddly enough, although you assume it. It's all assumption.

---

In reality - as we can see - you prefer to divert discussion of that subject and talk about habitat destruction instead. Which is clearly a peripheral issue at most. If you really had a case why do you keep talking about something else - even though you don't have a case for that either ? Your lack of interest in the subject, of course, is hardly evidence in your favour.And as we can see from your first paragraph you are reduced to insisting that the "problem" is that we don't make the (false) assumptions you want us to make.

There is absolutely no evidence in support of the idea of ancient environments, it's all imaginary constructs based on misreading some elements within rocks that are better interpreted in other ways.And although everybody is resisting my request to test these claims with my "puzzle," my own small effort already shows that the idea is false. When I'm able I hope to pursue more examples.

quote:

---

There is absolutely no evidence in support of the idea of ancient environments, it's all imaginary constructs based on misreading some elements within rocks that are better interpreted in other ways.

---

Unlikely (at best) explanations favouring your views are not "better" in any objective sense. And that is all that you can offer.

quote:

---

And although everybody is resisting my request to test these claims with my "puzzle," my own small effort already shows that the idea is false.

---

And that is an outright falsehood. Nobody is resisting - in fact your "puzzle" has been answered. And in fact you never actually developed it to a point where it was a puzzle at all - and you have refused to even try to do that.

What does this have to do with what ends up in a stratigraphic column?

I was going to see if your "eroded surface" that is "part of the rock record" could be traced along the lines of my puzzle, from landscape to rock, but unfortunately there isn't enough information to go on.What should I expect to see if I look for what formed this ancient topography that you say made the squiggly line in your favorite illustrations? Should I see trees and plants and animals and stuff? Should I see hills and valleys?If it eroded into the surface of a rock that can be seen in the stratigraphic column does that mean it formed directly on top of that rock? Is that rock the same age or an earlier time period?ABE: Was the rock it eroded into already lithified before the landscape formed? Did it get lithified by being buried under a lot of sediment as so far has been the prescribed method? Was the landscape that eroded into it built on top of that sediment if not directly on the rock? Did all that sediment erode away too, but only the landscape eroded into the rock? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.