The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

That the OE theory conjures landscapes out of the flat rocks of the strata, but the actual "landscape" of any "time period" represented by those rocks is the rocks themselves or the processes that laid them down as sediments. You conjure the landscapes out of qualities of the rock and its contents, but those landscapes did not exist during the time of the laying down of the sediments that formed that rock. All that existed during that time period was the sediments that became the rock. The evidence is clear. It's in every discussion of the formation of the strata, it's in every illustration of the strata linked to the time periods, it's in the cores from the holes drilled to look for oil. ALL THERE WAS on the surface of the earth wherever the strata exist, in any of those "time periods," was the sediments that became the rock strata. But there is NO evidence of those supposed rivers in the actual evidence available of the time period itself. You "see" rivers that you impute to that time period, but there is no evidence of them in the only evidence we have of the time period, the rock slabs that represent it. They are more or less flat on top and bottom like all the rock slabs of the strata. Perhaps you are seeing rivers that are flowing through the strata of some "time periods" and impute them to those time periods although in reality the river didn't exist until it began to flow in recent time through the rocks that are associated with those time periods. The river doesn't belong to those time periods, it simply cuts through the rocks associated with them, but it cut through them after they were all laid down. A dried up river bed should show up as a gully in the rock strata if it existed during the time period supposedly encapsulated in that rock. An ordinary river isn't going to deposit enough sediment to cover the vast regions covered by the strata. What you are "seeing" isn't the sedimentary strata, whatever else it might be. What you see is gouges in strata that were filled in by subsequently deposited sediments, and you see them deep in the earth by those seismic methods. They were never canyons on the surface of the earth. Buried in flat slabs of rock with no trees growing on its surface because it's covered by another flat slab of rock. At the very top of a stack of strata you will find trees growing, because that's the surface of the earth and no such surface existed ever on any of the slabs of rock beneath. You see mountains you believe were there in the Jurassic Period but you do not see them represented in the actual evidence OF the Jurassic Period which is the slabs of rock formed out of that "vast sea of sand" and the advancing and retreating shallow seas and all the rest of it. But you don't see the Appalachians in the slabs of rock that represent the Ordovician on up. What you see is strata IN the Appalachians from the Ordovician on up, that have become deformed into the shape of mountains, a product of RECENT time, which is how we get today's surface of the earth, which didn't exist in any time period when all there was was the flat deposition of the sediments that became the rocks that got twisted into mountains after they had all been laid down. In their original state during their assigned time period they formed a vast featureless "landscape" with no mountains. But they weren't there when the Ordovician sediments were first laid down in the Ordovician "time period." No, that describes the sedimentary rocks that BECAME the Appalachians, not the Appalachians themselves, which formed FROM those rocks AFTER the entire Geo Column was laid down.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's because I'm making a point about the time periods which are marked by the strata. But you'd also have to make a case that the fossils found in those rocks actually lived in the OTHER parts of the earth that supposedly weren't covered by the slabs of rock. Because they certainly couldn't live on the surface of the slabs of rock. But if they lived elsewhere, where presumably there would have been food and other accommodations, why did they end up buried and fossilized in the rocks far away from those locations? Also, you'd have to show that there even were such other parts of the earth in a given "time period." Some place not subjected to the advancing and retreating shallow seas for instance, that seem to have been the source of most of the strata. Not many land creatures could have survived long in those seas, or they'd have flourished for a while only to be wiped out by the next advance or something like that. Yes, those could be included in a more exact cartoon, along with the dinosaur prints and the raindrops and the ripple marks etc. But all they really represent is some harder rock that penetrated up through subsequent layers, nothing representative of an actual landscape. Ah yes, and I just happened to have mentioned them in a post to Dr. A. But surely a buried "landscape" doesn't invalidate the fact that the strata so visible in so many places are flat slabs of rock with no "canyons" cut into them. And besides they are just great holes in very deep layers of rock that show the action of water which most likely occurred underground. All such features we see on the surface occurred after the strata were all laid down, so it figures that would be true even for such underground features. Have you noticed the very straight upper surface of those channels that are continuous with the upper surface of the Muav limestone and the other strata where such channels formed? Although those are generally interpreted as stream channels supposedly occurring when the surface was exposed, it's an odd situation of a "stream" cutting through a very flat surface like that, which on the surface of the earth would hardly remain so flat for very long; and it doesn't fit with that flat upper surface that is continuous with the upper surface of the surrounding limestone, which would be more consistent with something that "ate through" the limestone, which is of course a rock type known to be subject to things eating through it, in this case another limestone, more liquid at the time, that created and then filled up the channel and became part of the limestone it cut through, which is shown by the flat contact line it shares with that limestone between it and the rock above. But there is nothing odd about that lack of uniformity. It would be consistent for instance with Flood depositions that they would thin out as the sediment load ran out. The overall impression of those rocks in the GC walls, however, is amazingly flat and uniform; the lack of uniformity doesn't show up in most views of the walls. And where exposed at the surface each would present a flat tabletop surface. The point the cartoon makes is that the dramatic features of the surface didn't form until after the strata were all laid down. That there are also flat areas doesn't change that fact and I don't know what point you think you are making by mentioning it. But as a matter of fact the strata cover a lot more than just a "section" of the earth. You yourself posted drawings showing that at least four of the strata cover most of North America. During which time there certainly were no mountains but only the flat sediment illustrated. Read any description of the physical conditions of any time period and you will see various modes of sedimentation described, you will see the vast sea of sand of the Jurassic described in the Britannica reference, followed by the advancing and retreating seas that make further sedimentary deposits on top of the sand. These ARE the ACTUAL features that you will find described. You will also find descriptions of IMAGINED landscapes based on the rocks and their contents, but the ACTUAL surface of the earth is presented in terms of sedimentary deposition. Perhaps you can find an exception somewhere? Thank you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Anything to pretend I'm wrong about anything I guess.Interestingly, this picture is one of many called "Jurassic strata" or "Jurassic rocks."

Strata cover great distances. They form the majority of the former earth surfaces in North American and probably many other places. Strata are strata, they are hardened sediments found in a stack, one on top of the other, they are not deserts the evidence for rivers is extremely sparse and not at all convincing, and there are no lakes on the surface of any of them as found in the stack. There are no rivers in the geo column. There are clues that suggest a river origin for some of the rocks. That is not the same as a river in the rocks. It's the rocks themselves that form the surface of the earth, following OE thinking, in all the former "time periods," bare flattish rocks. Any "landscapes" are mentally conjured from stuff in the rocks, imaginary landscapes that did not exist in the time period represented by the rock, though no doubt they existed somewhere sometime and the rock represents THAT, just not the supposed "time period" that the rock is identified with, because all there is there and ever was there is the sediment that became rock, between other sediments that became rock. No landscapes, just rocks. But no strata are made out of such sediment because there isn't enough of it to make such a rock. No rivers flow in the strata, no dried up rivers are in the strata either. Which has nothing to do with the stack of strata which cover so much of the surface of the earth. Oddly I'm the only one here following the actual evidence. Imaginary landscapes based on rock contents or seismic imaging don't reflect the actuality, which is that there never were any landscapes during the time periods represented by the strata, there were only the strata themselves. I'm describing the actual physical strata that cover so much land at such great depths. Landscapes occurred nowhere IN the strata EVER, only at the top of the whole stack or whatever part of the stack remains after they were all laid down. But not in that layer of sediment. A dead tree with some paleosol stock to its roots within a sedimentary rock isn't going to feed any dinosaurs. Well, but of course the Flood was the source of the strata and everything in them, including uprooted trees. It is actually an important observation that you should think about. The Appalachians do not date to the strata found in them, which I believe is a common geological mistake. The Appalachians are the result of the buckling of whatever strata were there when the tectonic pressure formed them. My usual argument is that the tectonic movement began at the end of the Flood after all the strata were in place.

The word "strata" is plural; it means "layers."

Not unless you are calling a flat featureless slab of rock a landscape. If you are then I need to differentiate my more common use of the word from your strange use.

And so another reasonable Creationist observation is treated to the usual obfuscating garbling tricks to pretend it doesn't overthrow Old Earthism. But it does. The facts so observed prove the Flood against Old Earthism. Of course as much sheer noise and chaos must be the response or somebody might notice that it shows the falseness of Old Earthism.The fact of the matter is that there are no time periods, there are only the rocks wrongly associated with time periods. There are no landscapes, those are all imagined from stuff in the rocks which is really nothing but flotsam from the Flood.There are no rivers in the strata, just some kinds of rocks that were formed in rivers. They seem unable to tell the difference. They also can't seem to tell the difference between sedimentary deposits when first laid down, and the deformations to a whole stack of them later.But the actual surface of the earth was nothing but sedimentary deposits in each bogus "time period." This is clear because it is known that the strata cover great distances, great distances of flat sedimentation that became rock, to a great depth in which the layers are all in a recognizable order. Strata, not livable landscapes, just sedimentary deposits, the ACTUAL surface of the earth in each time period. It's amazing how much effort has gone into pretending this was not the case.They prefer their games and their imaginary time periods, but the facts remain: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's all very interesting of course but it really doesn't speak to my point. And I despair of ever getting it recognized, simple though it is.Here is a typical illustration of a supposed Time Period, the Devonian in this case, drawn to represent the contents of Devonian rocks: Now all that actually exists of the Devonian Period is flat slabs of rock with the remains of that sort of flora. A thickness of sediment supposedly washed over it all and buried it, becoming another rock on top of other rocks stacked beneath it, all supposedly containing whole landscapes. YOu don't really think this, you simply imagine a reasonable landscape like any on earth's surface, but you have no place for such a landscape to actually exist since all there is is flat sediment that becomes flat rock.If it ever was a landscape of that sort, it's easy enough to suppose that the trees got buried and the river left a few pebbles in the rock, but don't you have to wonder how the hills got collapsed down to a single flat surface? The thing about a LANDSCAPE is that, like the surface of the earth NOW, it COULDN'T POSSIBLY be collapsed into a flat layer of sediment. I know it seems ridiculous to say it, and of cousre you aren't imagining such a thing, but that's really the point I'm making because it's all that COULD have happened given the facts versus the imaginary landscape.
\
The time periods are represented only by flat rocks, they are not landscapes and never were. And couldn't have been because they stack on top of one another fairly neatly and flatly. What they contain is not a landscape but fossils and pieces of rock that you INTERPRET into a landscape. And you assume the rock is now where that landscape used to be? But there is no way that is physically possible. As I've asked before, do you really expect a great deal of the current surface of the Earth to collapse down into a flat slab of rock like those in the strata? Of course not.So what ARE you thinking really? Have you REALLY thought about the relation of the strata to the landscapes you imagine were once there? Aren't you just looking at some pebbles inside the rock and letting yourself get carried away imagining a whole landscape in place of the rock, without noticing that physically it could not possibly have occurred because the only thing that is there and ever was there is this sedimentary deposit become rock?Where are all those landscapes you imagine were once there? Landscapes do not get buried under sediments, no matter how thick. It can't happen. And if you are "inferring" such a landscape from the contents you still have to have some idea how it could have existed when ALL THERE IS AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE is this flat sedimentary deposit.abe: Oh right, EROSION. Yep, every single landscape that ever existed just got eroded right down to flatness, just like the surface of the Great Unconformity, and the sediments were deposited on that surface. Of course one then has to wonder where the animals went? Wouldn't they all have died out leaving nothing living on the planet? Why are they fossilized inside this very rock? Or maybe they moved to some area where the sediments didn't deposit? But why then are they buried inside these sediments? /abeOf course this would make Geology look pretty foolish to have to admit there is such a problem that has never been faced, so it's nutty of me to think I could jog anyone into noticing it. You're just going to go on trying to prove that what's in a rock really IS a landscape, no matter how wacky such an idea is.And if you noticed the REAL problem it would prove there never were long ages or time periods so that isn't going to happen, is it? The only sensible interpretation of the ACTUAL FACTS, the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, which is the strata that span such huge areas, is the Flood.Yes, the only actual landscapes occurred before the Flood, and it's the artifacts from that earthly surface that are in the rocks of the strata, and the landscape of today's Earth's surface that built on the very top of the strata. The flat rocks themselves were never landscapes and couldn't have been landscapes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I KNOW it is being misunderstood. And I do hope to go back and answer those posts.

Interesting because I made a drawing of the GC strata back maybe ten years ago or so that showed that I would have expected such deep channels to have been eroded through the strata if the claimed erosion really existed. I included a whole landscape of hills and trees and river, however, to show that I'd expect all that to appear on any actual surface if the rock had been exposed as claimed. I haven't been able to find those illustrations. Too bad. I used to be able to draw pretty well on Paint. But the laser guided mouse isn't as controllable, not to mention that my eyes are giving out.ANYWAY. Those eroded stream channels in your rock strata obviously occurred after all the strata were laid down, right? I mean, the illustration doesn't show the sediments above them to have deposited into them, as they should have if the deposition came after the erosion; but they deposited across them forming the usual flat surface. Somehow the river/stream then cut down through the probably-not-quite-consolidated sediments afterward. This is not, therefore, an example of a landscape with a river running through it that later got collapsed down into layers of sediment and eventually hardened into rock. These rivers were never on the surface of the earth, judging by your own illustration. I give you credit, however, for coming up with a genuine example of a river running through the strata. Congratulations. Since when would a fossilized tree stump be part of a livable landscape?See, this very statement illustrates the confusion I'm talking about. There are lots of things IN the rocks that seem to be CLUES to such a landscape and that's how Geology, under the spell of the Ancient Earth idea, interprets them. But in themselves they are not part of any landscape, they are just stuff buried in a rock. The only actual landscape of any "time period" is exactly what I illustrated in that cartoon: it's an enormous flat surface of sediment becoming rock. The "rivers" within haven't yet formed and wouldn't be evident on the surface in any case; and the tree stump is dead, it's not part of a liveable landscape. Nothing could live on the ACTUAL landscape which is the flat sediment. Perhaps a terrified dinosaur would run across such a "landscape" higher up in the strata, before being overtaken by the next wave or tidal surge of the Flood waters, but otherwise you aren't going to find anything actually LIVING ON this surface.And again, this sediment/rock IS the surface in its supposed time period. Do you imagine mountains and trees and grass and rivers and lakes forming on it before the next is laid down or what? After all there's lots of time for that to happen according to OE theory. And then all that got eroded down to nothing but somehow the living things that had been there didn't all just die as a result? You need to get your imaginary landscape more in tune with the actuality, which is the strata that obviously spanned all the area where any such landscape should have been, and still spans it. No landscapes there. No living things there. Only dead things buried IN the rock. Nothing alive ever lived ON the rock. It was all buried in the sediments carried by the Flood waters of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Please don't keep garbling the point. The only tree in the strata is a dead tree. The only normal landscape is an imaginary one constructed from the presence of a dead tree. The only ACTUAL landscape is a stack of rocks that cover enormous swaths of geography and contain some dead trees among other dead things.What you have to explain, since you believe there was an actual normal landscape for each time period, is where that landscape could have occurred given that the only actual evidence of the time period is a slab of rock. Did the landscape form on top of the lower rock, did it then get eroded down to nothing for the next sediment to deposit on top of it? What exactly do you think happened?There is nothing silly or false about what I'm saying. The problem is that Geology believes something that IS silly and false and can't admit it, or more precisely, can't recognize it, can't see the discontinuity between the actuality and the imagined landscape they construct out of a few clues found in a rock. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I guess I have to remember always to include "featureless" or the like in my description. As usual you give examples of something OTHER than what I'm talking about, and as usual I wonder if you are doing it intentionally or really don't understand the point.You are giving examples of today's landscape, Panel 1 of my cartoon. It isn't just "flat sediments" that is the subject of course, it's flat sediments without anything growing on them (Panels 2 and 3), no grass, no trees, nothing that could sustain life.So I have to ask you what I asked PaulK. Since you apparently believe that the flat surfaces that are the only evidence we have of former time periods, did sustain life, specifically the life forms found fossilized within the rock in question, how do you explain how that occurred, where it occurred, etc., considering that all there is to memorialize your landscape is the sedimentary rock with the flat surfaces top and bottom and the relatively tight contacts between it and the rocks above and below.Please give us your scenario for the landscape you imagine out of the clues in the rock: Did it form on top of the earlier rock, spend its millions of years developing, and then erode down to nothing as sedimentary deposits spread for thousands of miles where it used to be, so that there is no trace of it at all between that deposit and the next "landscape" to form on top of it? And what happened to all the flora and fauna that supposedly lived in that landscape that has come and gone and been reduced to a slab of rock?Giving us pictures of today's environments and landscapes only tells us that you believe that such landscapes existed in former time periods, but it doesn't tell us how that is possible given that the only evidence of those time periods is an enormous deep and hugely extensive stack of sedimentary rocks. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem with this, my dear Dr. A, is that some of the flat rocks extend across whole continents flat as a pancake, encountering no mountains, and most of the sedimentary rocks cover huge areas in any case -- as flat deposits. In fact discussions of each time period in a book I have called "Historical Geology" describe the advancement and regression of shallow seas over the entire North American continent during all the time periods from Precambrian to Holocene. I admit that given geological assumptions there SHOULD be mountains in these pictures, and I'll have to read through that section again to find out if I missed something. Where exactly do you locate your mountains in this sequence of events? And if such mountains did exist and the sediments deposited around them, did all the living things crowd together on the mountains or what? If so, how is it we find them buried in those sediments and Geology assumes that they lived where those lithified sediments are now clearly the only clue to the existence of that particular time period?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I'm a halfwit everybody else here must be quarterwits or less. Isn't there anybody who gets it?I'll be back after a break.ABE: I apologize for joining in the namecalling. I don't like it when it's done to me, so I take it back. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't like being off topic like this. I wish you'd either change the title of the thread or it would become clear it's time to start a new one.Anyway, I looked at the book I mentioned, Historical Geology by Wicander and Monroe, sixth edition, and realized I was thinking of the section on the sea transgressions which occurred in the central part of the continent, over the craton or around it, and this area is treated separately from the mountain-building coasts, the Cordilleran on the West and the Appalachian/Oachita on the East, where in the first transgression the sea only covered the margins of those areas and not the center of the continent.I did, however, find more grist for my mill. It's frustrating because I know you have plenty of knowledge and I also know you have no interest in using it to further any point I might make, so you'll spend most of your time making irrelevant comments and posting irrelevant information on the subject. Of course you may think it's relevant, which is an even scarier thought. Your map above isn't very informative either. But anyway.Since the topic is the Jurassic I skipped ahead in the book to the pages where the sea transgression-regression of that time period (The Zuni Sequence) is illustrated and discussed, and I've gotta ask if Geologists ever consider the implications of their notions? I mean here we have this sea transgression that covers the interior of the continent from the Rockies to the Great Lakes, with the Rockies on the West and "deep ocean" to the West of the Rockies. What I have to know is where is the landscape on which any land creature could survive during this period?The dinosaurs most heavily populated this very area that is either under water or steeply mountainous, mountains not being the sort of terrain one usually associates with dinosaurs, and the most familiar dinosaur territory with the most familiar dinosaur beds, west of the Rockies, is covered by "deep ocean." And this is the Jurassic Period. There should be a fair amount of terrestrial life trying to survive in the west, shouldn't there? What am I missing?But OK maybe we should look at the Cretaceous instead, illustrated on the next page. Where we find pretty much the same situation except the "Epeiric sea" now extends somewhat farther east, though there is a narrow margin on the east side of the Rockies that is now dry land. But most of Dinosaur Land is still either under the shallow water of the epeiric sea or the deep ocean water west of the Rockies, or the Rockies themselves.What am I to make of this? There's no place for the dinosaurs to live.Of course maybe they were all living east of the epeiric sea at that time and migrated westward as the sea retreated? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.