The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Faith, the reason people do not agree with your point is that it is NOT TRUE. Numerous examples have been produced in this thread. You can see some in the post you are replying to. And yet you say that it is irrelevant and that your point is being misunderstood.So, if there is a misunderstanding on our part it is this. We do not understand why the actual facts should be discounted in favour of your assertions. Perhaps you should try explaining that instead of just trotting out the "you don't understand" line.

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.

I'll leave edge to refute the other silliness but this is just so obvious:

quote:

---

Since when would a fossilized tree stump be part of a livable landscape?

---

It should be obvious that the real question should be "Since when would a tree be part of a livable landscape?" I really don't think that any more need be said.

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.

Here are some pictures of things living on flat sediment. You will see that it is perfectly possible. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is common.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Please don't keep garbling the point.

---

But I am not.

quote:

---

The only tree in the strata is a dead tree.

---

And obviously that would be the case, no matter who was right.The point, however, is how did the tree stump get there to be fossilised. If it has roots in place (and there are examples of such) then the evidence indicates that the tree grew there, died and the stump was buried and eventually fossilised. This would be evidence of a livable landscape. Discounting it on the grounds that it is fossilised now IS silly.

quote:

---

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?

---

Since the tree stumps are in the coal, I would tentatively suggest that the landscape - a peat bog - is right there, compressed and lithified. The coal bed where the stumps are found follows the dip of a stream bed, clearly indicating that that stream was part of the landscape at that time.

quote:

---

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.

---

It is silly and false to accuse me of "garbling the point" when in fact I am illustrating the silliness of the point.It is silly and false to say that all we have is a flat slab of rock when the bed in question is dips into a channel.It is silly and false to think that making excuses to explain away contrary evidence causes that evidence to cease to exist. The existence of features in the strata prove that the strata are not featureless, no matter what "explanations" you dream up.

(Except in a magic flood.) No, Faith. Lots of mountains are still right there. And have been for millions upon millions of years. They have not all been eroded to flatness. They have certainly not "collapsed down into a flat slab of rock". They just stand there being mountains.Edited by Dr Adequate, : 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.

Namely? I wonder who wrote it and why he didn't mention the mountains. Do you have a reference, maybe some quotations? Well, for example, here's a pretty relief map of North America in the Jurassic Period, when we had the Interior Seaway ...

Whereas when we look at the actual terrestrial sedimentary rocks we find abundant evidence of plant life. This is another reason why we should look at the fossil record, like scientists do, instead of looking at cartoons, like creationists do. Huh?No, it didn't.That's just ... weird. Some of them are preserved as fossils; most of them are not. Which is what you'd get as the landscapes in the photographs got covered over by further sediment, buried, compacted, cemented, lithified ... they too will become sedimentary rocks one day, so long as they continue to be in depositional environments.I don't see what it is you're finding hard to understand here. Are you absolutely incapable of concrete thought? I can understand how you might get confused by genetics, but here we are talking about very basic material stuff that everyone's seen: mud; sand; water; grass; trees.

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.

And all the geologists.Funny, you'd think that studying geology would make them know more about geology than you do. If only your unique ability to "get it" went hand in hand with some rudimentary capacity to explain it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.