This is to answer a certain post without addressing its author
I do NOT AT ALL DENY "buried paleo landscapes." This is another straw man.
Of course you deny the existence of paleolandscapes, Faith, you acknowledge 'configurations,' NOT LANDSCAPES. Big difference.
I am willing to call them landscapes, as I've said, but only if it is understood that when I use the term I am hypothesizing something a lot more recent and short-lived than the term means to someone who believes the OE theory, and the only reason I use the term "configurations" is as a generic to avoid the OE assumption of ancient age, to acknowledge that I recognize a landscape pattern but without the usual theoretical baggage. The term is inadequate of course and if it's all that objectionable I'll just not use it.
You mean 'interesting random patterns in the subsurface.'
No, I mean by it exactly what geologists mean by it, merely trying to avoid the ancient-earth connotations.
I mean 'landscapes,' as in the ancient surface of the Earth... as in deserts, oceans, braided stream environments.
Yes, you do, and as description of existing buried landscapes I have no problem with it, only with the idea that they were ever all that ancient or even were the surface of the earth for any great length of time. A desert "environment" can very well describe a certain stratum, without implying a multi-million-year period, ditto "ocean" ditto "braided stream environment" -- none of which had to endure any great length of time to exhibit those features that are characterized by those names.
We're talking GEOLOGY here, Faith, not Faith-ology.
Yes, well I'm truly sorry it appears that I'm challenging geology as I don't consider myself to be doing that at all. Obviously there's a lot of emotional investment in this OE theory that I dispute, apart from all the practical models derived from it that I accept and do not dispute. Truly makes it impossible for a discussion to occur between creationist views and evolutionist views when the evolutionists have such an emotional reaction, and when it's rewarded by the community as well. But in this case it really is just about impossible even to get across what I continue to believe is a simple point I'm making.
I'm going to extreme lengths in the effort to get across that I acknowledge the *physical reality* of these "landscapes" (though the term is unfortunately tendentious) as the subject of the actual science that nobody disputes. These "landscapes" are the underground configurations that are described by the various methods that I've also been accused of denying but don't deny at all, such as stratigraphy etc.
You can "acknowledge the physical reality of these landscapes" all you want, but it's entirely obvious you haven't a clue what defines them or what they represent.
That is correct, I have only a general idea, but I do have at least that general idea, having to do with the characteristics of the strata which have led to ideas about how they were laid down, whether in water, or rising and receding water or desert dryness and other conditions. While it would no doubt at least command some respect if I could use the concepts precisely, I know that they are not necessary to the point I'm trying to make, and I'm stubborn enough to insist on taking the disrespect since I know they are not necessary. Which isn't to say I refuse to learn about these things but as a matter of fact my efforts to track down particular geological information have been timeconsuming and not often very successful, though I've picked up some general terms and concepts in the process.
To you, these configurations are nothing but rocks, in their most generic sense.
Not exactly. I can picture that you are picturing an actual landscape with landscape features like streams and deserts and valleys and dunes and seashore and the like. I get the picture and I've acknowledged its usefulness.
Every formation is characterized by very specific rocks, textures, mineral compositions, internal structures, fossils, alterations, and morphologies; which in turn are the result of various depositional environments, all subjected to various amounts and degrees of diagenesis and/or metamorphism and deformation.
Exactly. I have the picture. I have no dispute with the picture. I understand its usefulness. I grasp its derivation from the characteristics of the various strata.
These configurations are not interesting, random assortments of rocks and minerals. Instead, they exhibit cross-bedding, grading, sorting, fossils, vegetation, lenses, changes in composition, etc., which are all repeated elsewhere in hundreds of other rocks and formations.
Believe me, that has been clear from the beginning, from at least the Great Debate if not before. I get the picture. I was already ridiculing the idea of "landscapes" before the Great Debate as I recall, meaning the idea of the millions of years of their supposed duration. As description of what is actually observed in the strata there is no problem, only the interpretation of how they got that way and how long it took.
These characteristics indicate that depositional PROCESSES are responsible for their existence.
Certainly. Not disputed. All this is the actual science. The theory is not.
What are your suggestions for modes of deposition/formation in your random-assortment-of-rocks model? What process is responsible for creating cross-beds, channels, or grading in the subsurface? Can't answer that? Refuse to?
Straw man. I do not HAVE a random-assortment-of-rocks model. I can visualize the topography of a stratum as it exists just fine. And the processes are not the topic of the discussion, the idea of how it all originated is the topic of the discussion and my claim is that it is superfluous to the actual science that is done. It may have been the catalyst to it, but in fact it appears not to inform any of the actual scientific work. And please don't scream. That supposition of mine is apparently borne out not only in the websites that discuss oil exploration methods, but in holmes' discussion of mapping buried terrains and in this discussion too, which is focusing only on the practical descriptive particulars of the landscapes, and in which their origin is obviously irrelevant to the scientific work concerning them.
Well guess what? There are mountains of literature available to anyone who cares to understand WHY geologists think the Alamo breccia and the Sudbury Basin are ancient impacts, or why tillites are interpreted to be glacial. YOU, on the other hand, have offered nothing other than ill-conceived child-like incredulity to support your position.
I'm sure there are mountains of literature, which is too much to ask me to read. But if all a person wants to do is ridicule someone who believes they have reason to think it wasn't so ancient and doesn't have the time or motivation to read mountains of arguments, then kindly tell us not to come to this site and that discussion will only occur with people who have read those mountains or accept the ancient age reasoning.
I'm denying only the entrenched IDEA THAT THEY REPRESENT ANCIENT SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY THAT LASTED MILLIONS OF YEARS. That they are "landscapes" *in a sense* is undisputed, though the term "landscape" is tendentious so I try to avoid it. That they were ever the surface topography of the planet for millions of years IS what is disputed, not that they actually exist as buried configurations that are describable in such terms.
You are not only denying that paleolanscapes represent millions of years of deposition, but also that they exist at all.
Not at all. I've acknowledged this over and over and am now allowing myself to use the terminology too because trying to avoid it has apparently been such a problem, though using it risks other confusions. I reject only the "paleo" part that implies those millions of years. That's all. I can see with my own eyes that they exist. I can see why they are regarded as landscapes purely descriptively. But I see no reason to believe they are millions of years old or lasted millions of years as surface topography.
Even if we determined tomorrow that each one of the thousands of formations in the geologic record took no more than a hundred years to be deposited, you still would not, COULD not, acknowledge paleolandscapes exist. If you did, you're disingenuity would reveal itself.
I guess everyone likes imputing this view to me that isn't mine, as holmes does though I've worked very hard showing that it isn't so.
Deep age is a fact based on the presence of hundreds upon hundreds of buried landscapes in the geologic record, as well as the recognition that what we see, ain't all that was there.
Excuse me if while acknowledging their reality I don't find those hundreds of buried landscapes to prove "deep age."
Fact is, the geologic record is more gaps than rock. The geologic record is a woefully INCOMPLETE record of ancient landscapes. It's akin to taking ten steps forward (i.e., deposition) and 9 steps back (erosion).
THAT is why we are pretty damn confident in our determination that the earth is billions of years old. It has nothing with how long ONE measly little braided stream environment took to form and deposit its sediment. It has to do with the QUANTITY of braided stream environments in the rock record and the fact that they are interspersed and stacked one atop the other with hundreds of other marine- and continent-deposited rocks.
Obviously other interpretations of these phenomena simply do not occur, except to me, and I'm not going to enter into that argument at this point, but that IS the point -- all the phenomena, the landscapes etc that are being described here are not in dispute. They are obviously real. Only the interpretations/explanations of their formation are in dispute. While I can appreciate the braided-stream evidence, for instance, I suspect it wasn't the braided stream that built the stratum.
Deep age was/is a logical and valid conclusion. If you don't agree, then give reasons why we are wrong. Reasons that don't include "could've."
That is not what this argument is about. Deep age IS one logical conclusion. If a temper tantrum weren't the response to the suggestion that maybe it isn't the best conclusion, perhaps discussion could proceed. I might not be the one to argue all the particulars, but I do know they involve alternative interpretations of all the very same phenomena explained here in terms of ancient age. If this didn't lead to all the insults and screaming and endless repetitious attempts to get across the simple point that isn't being heard, I can guess about some alternative interpretations, but I really think that's something creationist geologists should be doing.
Your incessant whining about the lack of generic terminology available to you is hilarious. We use the term paleolandscape because that's what we mean - and we can show you why we've determined that.
I'm sure you can, and I usually want to avoid the terminology because of the interpretive baggage it carries but if it's the only terminology going then I use it with qualifications.
When we're on the side of a mountain and say, "look at that reef complex," that's what we mean - it's a freaking REEF with fossils of corals, sponges, brachiopods, etc.
I'm sure it is. Why the screaming as if I'd disputed it?
The science, methodology, and success of geology is borne out of the our recognition of deep age.
Um, only instrumentally I believe. I haven't yet seen an actual use for the idea in any of the actual scientific observations or methods that have come up here, either from this post or from holmes or on any of the websites. There's no doubt that the science has gone on UNDER this notion, and been inspired by it, but I question its necessity.
You cannot accept modern geologic science and its methods and then turn around and discard what those methods reveal about our geologic history. Or at least no sane and reasonable person could.
Well perhaps someone would like to show how the methods revealed the history, as is claimed, as my impression is that the methods grew out of the supposed history or have developed under the umbrella of the history, but might possibly have developed without it just as well. Actually, it's even possible that the history did make the methods possible even if the history is wrong, because it enabled the visualization of the strata in these landscape terms which does help a great deal -- even if they turn out, properly speaking, not to have been landscapes in the sense the OE paradigm asserts.
™ Version 4.2