Summations Only

quote:

---

Dinosaurs "walking out on an unlivable place" isn't a straw man? It's a SILLY straw man.

---

No, it's the "THEN" logically derived from your own "IF", and demonstrates AGAIN the exact point of that post.JB

If this was in fact a shoreline advancing then how about the idea that it eventually advanced to cover all that emergent land.Of course there is always A landscape because there is always the original world being overtaken by the water in the case of the worldwide Flood. In fact I think I will take this as my cue to resume that topic.

I want to resume the topic of the imaginary landscapes that are based on the Geological Timescale that I say couldn't have existed, that all that existed was the rocks on which geologists build the idea of the time periods and such former landscapes.So I want to be clear about what I mean since it seems people are getting the wrong idea, as if I'm denying that the world was ever decorated with landscapes. My original cartoon shows today's surface with the hills and trees and river and other forms of life that we see today. I'm certainly not denying that there are landscapes. And before the Flood of course the surface of the world also contained hills and trees and rivers and so on (in fact ALL the life forms found in all the strata of the Geological Column.)The landscapes I'm denying are those that are supposed to have existed during each particular time period, populated by only the life forms peculiar to that time period as determined by the fossils in the rock layers identified with that time period. This means the landscapes would have to have been built from the strata themselves with their fossil contents:You've got a sedimentary deposit with a certain array of contents that are now fossilized, that you interpret from today's perspective as indicating a whole world in which the fossilized life lived, a "depositional environment." It would have to have existed where the sedimentary rock now exists, wouldn't it? The usual idea is that what you find in the rock represents a world that existed on that very site, yes?Say it's a Devonian deposit. There are strata already there (The Tapeats Sandstone of the Cambrian Period for instance) that the Devonian sedimentary deposit now covers, complete with dead things inside. Lists are made of its characteristics and its fossil contents. Some artist constructs an illustration from that information of what the supposed world looked like in which the once-living-things then lived. It is a landscape.Here's one such illustration: It looks like any landscape that could exist on the earth today except that it's limited to the life forms found in the Devonian rock.Here's one for the Carboniferous: same situation: Except for its distinctively sooty look, which I've found characterizes many illustrations of this period, it also could be a landscape somewhere on the planet today. You have to know that it too is limited to the particular life forms found in the Carboniferous rocks: Here's a Permian imaginary landscape: Now-extinct land creatures are starting to appear: Triassic: Jurassic: Cretaceous: And so on and so forth. The point is that THESE are the imaginary landscapes I'm saying never existed as Geology supposes them to have existed, landscapes limited to the particular life forms found within a particular layer or layers of rock and supposed to have existed on the site where the rock is now found.

No, not existed ON the rock. The landscapes, themselves, became the rock through the processes of sedimentation and lithification.

We understand that is what you are saying but once again, reality proves you wrong.The proof that such landscapes are not just imaginary but rather conclusions based on facts is the existence of the fossils that were buried during each of those time periods as well as the correlations of all the different methods of determining relative time periods.

Then I would expect to see evidence of that. Then the flood wouldn't be world-wide, would it?

But why are the plants and animals so different through time?

But I very carefully didn't say "on the rock," I said "on the site where the rock is now found" which should fit with what you said. They "became the rock."abe: in an attempt to be clearer: Somehow you read "site" as on top of the rock. What I meant was "where the rock is now sitting" or in the place where the rock is now sitting. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, I misspoke. I merely meant to identify the landscape I recognize as the real landscape, not suggest that it wasn't completely overtaken by the Flood, which I realize it sounds like I said. I just meant that the one and only landscape in relation to the strata got overtaken by the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, at the time sediments were deposited in the Cretaceous, there was still some land on which dinosaurs could live (and leave fossils and trace fossils in those sediments) and that was the primitive surface that was there before the flood?

Well but is there really a consistent progression of differentness through time? How consistent is it? Are those in the lowest strata really much odder than those in the Jurassic or in some cases those today? In any case aren't most of the fossilized creatures at least obviously related to today's? And there are some pretty odd creatures in the most recent time period too, most now extinct. Come to think of it there are some very odd creatures in other parts of the world from the point of view of an American. Is there really some sort of progression of differentness?My impression is no, the oddness in the fossil record compared to living things today is evidence of the different world before the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's possible, if all the strata weren't laid down yet, that there was some unflooded land left; but at the level of the Cretaceous it wouldn't have stayed a livable surface for long; it would very soon have been covered by the Flood waters. If it took five months for the water to submerge everything, according to my earlier assumption, they might have had a few weeks left, but certainly if it was all submerged in only forty days, at best it would have been a few hours.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Absolutely. Completely What do you mean 'odder'?They are vastly different. Do you have some mammal fossil in the Cambrian rocks that correlates to a giraffe? That would be an ancestor to any modern mammal? Fossil communities change through time, even within a given environment. Your impression would be demonstrably wrong.

Oh don't accuse me of expecting to find mammals in the Cambrian. When I talk about similarities I mean between the actual fossilized life forms in the rocks with the same kind of life forms today. We don't have trilobites but how different are the other kinds of sea life from today's, and the insects and worms and so on?

The Burgess Shale contained fossils so odd that they were originally assigned to previously-unknown phyla. That often turned out to be wrong, but the bizarre Hallucigenia was found to be related to the obscure velvet worms.