Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 337 of 1257 (788772)
08-04-2016 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Faith
08-04-2016 12:29 PM


Re: The Imaginary Time Period Landscapes
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.
But why are the plants and animals so different through time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 12:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 3:37 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 340 of 1257 (788778)
08-04-2016 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Faith
08-04-2016 3:04 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
I just meant that the one and only landscape in relation to the strata got overtaken by the Flood.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 3:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 3:46 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 343 of 1257 (788781)
08-04-2016 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Faith
08-04-2016 3:37 PM


Re: The Imaginary Time Period Landscapes
Well but is there really a consistent progression of differentness through time?
Absolutely.
How consistent is it?
Completely
Are those in the lowest strata really much odder than those in the Jurassic or in some cases those today?
What do you mean 'odder'?
They are vastly different.
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.
Do you have some mammal fossil in the Cambrian rocks that correlates to a giraffe? That would be an ancestor to any modern mammal?
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?
Fossil communities change through time, even within a given environment.
My impression is no, the oddness in the fossil record compared to living things today is evidence of the different world before the Flood.
Your impression would be demonstrably wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 3:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 3:55 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 351 of 1257 (788800)
08-04-2016 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Faith
08-04-2016 4:52 PM


Re: The Imaginary Time Period Landscapes
I agree that is one strange bug; and putting "Burgess Shale creatures" into Google Image turns up a bunch more. But then just putting "strange bugs" into Google image turns up quite a collection of bugs living today, including the ones Dr. A posted on a while back, that may very possibly rival the fossil bugs. (A few I suspect of being human inventions but I don't know) So I'm not so sure the fossil record has anything more outlandish than today's bug world.
The problems is that those creatures are not 'bugs' as we know them. These are marine creatures and are not insects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 4:52 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by jar, posted 08-04-2016 9:22 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 366 of 1257 (788839)
08-05-2016 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
08-05-2016 12:42 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Well, you have that part of the fairytale down pat, the weird idea that any surface ...
Please do not exaggerate. No one is talking about 'any' surface.
... can somehow be eroded and compacted down to flatness and become a rock ...
There is a disconnect here. No surface becomes a rock. Sediments can be lithified to become rock, but surfaces simply reflect some kind of discontinuity in the rock, be they bedding planes or cross-bedding or fault planes, etc. They can be deformed, accentuated or eradicated by later processes, but they are never more than a plane. We can discuss lineations later...
As far a flattening by compression, this would happen in the marine sediments that you always refer to as strata. It all depends on the homegeneity of the underlying stratum, its strength and how it is loaded. It would be a complex enough process that it isn't really a good argument either way, but I can see it happening in certain situations of even loading on an undulating surface.
The difference is in terrestrial deposits. Here are some late Cretaceous siltstone beds in Wyoming that have been unevenly loaded by an overlying sand. Note that the lower coal is not distorted but the thinly bedded silts (with sandy and coaly layers) has been warped downward wherever the sand accumulated in greater amounts. This process of compaction allows even more sand to fill in at the top. Also, notice how the upper contact of the sand is also quite even and level.
My point is that with uneven loading, such as what you would get in a meandering stream channel (that would be a terrestrial landscape), over weak sediments, you can get irregular bedding planes. This is one way that we recognize non-marine sedimentation.
In a marine situation, you have weak sediments, but very even loading (i.e. a stead rain of sediments) so there is less distortion with loading.
... like those in the strata of the Geo Column.
All rocks are part of a geological column. The only exception would be if someone moved them.
Start with enough sediment and just stand back and it will all come down to a flat slab of rock in the end. Even today's surface with all its high mountains and deep lakes and all the rest of it of course. It's just a matter of giving it all enough Time. One absurdity on top of another. Imagination can accomplish miracles of course, or whatever you want it to.
I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems like a straw-man argument, but certainly erosion can lead to very flat surfaces on the earth. It can do so by planing off the surface or by creating material to fill in low spots.
The thing we have that you do not is time and certain processes that act over time. Since you don't have time, you cannot even visualize these processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 12:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 367 of 1257 (788840)
08-05-2016 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
08-05-2016 10:54 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Same answer to your Message 266 where you say compression would have made the strata appear flatter.
As I said earlier, it can happen. The situation would be one of very similar sediments with very similar properties, an irregular surface on the earlier one and then compression of the entire stack of rocks at once. I don't see this as a huge effect, but one that you would have to take into account if you were explaining a particular section of rocks.
Not unless the compressing weight was flat itself, ...
Exactly. it would have to be a vertical force exerted evenly over a large area. This can happen in marine sediments and maybe locally in terrestrial settings.
... and that would be true of the strata themselves whose weight would certainly have enormously compacted lower layers.
If the section were deep enough.
But not if the sediment being compressed had any of the lumpiness of a normal surface of the earth.
That 'normal surface', of course, being a landscape formed by erosion. So, yes, it would show very irregular surfaces, which are exactly what we see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 10:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 368 of 1257 (788842)
08-05-2016 2:40 PM


Here is an example of a channel (landscape) cut into the Muav Limestone in the Grand Canyon. It is filled by the Temple Butte Limestone and all overlain by the Redwall Limestone. I think it should be readily visible to most folks.
The point here is not only erosion of a landscape somewhere within flat and even strata, but the fact that this actually occurs within the Grand Canyon area which is Faith's type section for what 'strata' should look like.

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 3:16 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 370 of 1257 (788845)
08-05-2016 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Faith
08-05-2016 3:16 PM


The Temple Butte limestone is far from fitting a normal surface feature.
Why?
One limestone cut into another, that's all, either just as they were laid down or right afterward. This is no stream bed, this is just water doing its thing in a watery environment, in this case carrying one calcareous substance along a channel within another.
Then perhaps you can explain the shape of the channel, the bedding in it and the fact that there are boulders in base of it.
Water would run between the joints of the strata and create many effects, perhaps dislodging enough material to get it called erosion even though it never was on the surface of the earth.
That's weird since the channel boundaries are not simply 'following joints'. It's also kinda weird that the Redwall did not fall into the cavity created so shortly after deposition.
Water will run in patterns that look like rivers and deltas just because that's the way water behaves.
Not if they are following joints and fractures...
That doesn't make it a river or a delta that ever existed on the surface of the earth where trees line its banks and so on.
Why would there have to be trees? Why would they have to be preserved?
And perhaps not "any" surface could be eroded down flat according to standard theory, but all those that are part of the geo column wherever it is found are considered to have been eroded down flat, each from a landscape defined by its fossil contents and other clues.
I think you remain confused as to what the Geological Column is, or actually isn't.
That's all the strata in the world, that's a lot of eroded surfaces, or landscapes reduced to flatness during their supposed time period.
Since your concept of a Geological Column is so distorted, I have no idea what you are talking about here. Have you not been reading Pressie's posts?
Some life forms that supposedly never existed before live in a landscape entirely different from any that existed before or since then either in that particular form, and then at some point like clockwork it all erodes down to flatness.
Please rephrase this.
The life forms had lived there though, on that very surface. Where did they go?
Well, some of them are fossilized right there, such as trilobites or brachiopods that lived in the sediment.
They got fossilized in the sedimentary remains of the landscape, none could have survived as the next entirely different landscape starts building with the next collection of entirely different life forms.
Not really, they just get buried as time goes on.
Each time it all erodes down to sediment in which a time period's flora and fauna are fossilized, we get an entirely new landscape with entirely NEW life forms building up on the solidifying surface of the prevous time period, and the whole pattern repeats itself.
Again, I cannot even begin to address this statement. What 'all erodes down to sediment'? How do you have landscapes in a marine environment? Do you really think that these creatures live on bare rocks at the bottom of a sea?
The living things all end up fossilized in the sediment that's all that's left of the landscape.
Trilobites did not live on a landscape. They lived on the bottom of the ocean.
And then we get another brand new scenario bulding on THAT surface.
Well, it's a continuous process. I'm not sure what the problem is here.
The same thing over and over again, leaving nothing but a sedimentary rock in which living things got fossilized.
And the problem is?
It's like creating the world from scratch each time.
Not really. It's an ongoing process, just like what we see happening today.
Nothing could survive from each scenario and yet it is assumed the next evolved from it. Impossible but that's the idea.
Why not? There is always an seafloor on which animals could live and coral reefs could grow, etc., etc.
The kind of surfaces you mention that don't get eroded like that didn't end up in the strata of the geo column, so that's an academic point.
I thought you denied that erosion happened. What are you saying?
I'm only talking about the strata of the geo column.
Which you have no understanding of, evidently. There is no the Geological Column.
It's the strata that were supposedly once landscapes in which their once-living fossils roamed, all the strata in the geo column.
There is no The Geo Column.
And you are not talking about landscapes, you are talking about seafloors.
As near as I can tell.
Stand back and look at the wall of the Grand Canyon at a location where it hasn't been tectonically distorted. ALL of those layers so neatly stacked one on top of another are considered to have once been landscapes ...
No.
The were considered to be seafloors. There are some unconformities, yes, but the layering is due mostly to marine deposition.
... that somehow miraculously eroded down and flattened into rock. ALL of them.
No.
This is a strawman argument. It's not all of them and it's not 'flattened'. That's just the way that marine sediments are deposited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 3:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 08-06-2016 9:27 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(4)
Message 381 of 1257 (788887)
08-06-2016 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
08-06-2016 9:27 AM


I don't think this post is as clear as it should be.
Well, we agree on that.
If you think that the Temple Butte channel could be cut into the Muav, underneath the Redwall, less than a year after deposition of them all, and leave no such evidence, you have to be completely devoted to magic.
The problem is it's impossible. It's utterly absurd and impossible. The idea of these "depositional environments" which are sometimes marine environments and sometimes terrestrial environments or "landscapes" cannot possibly have existed as Geology says they did. All that exists and ever existed is the sedimentary deposits that became rock.
You keep saying this, but all I can determine is that it's just your wish that it be so.
Please tell us what prohibits the mainstream explanation of historical geology ... other than your personal incredulity.
Well it sort of did, in the picture you put up of it. Though that wouldn't have to be a problem if the other liquid sediment created and filled the cavity at the same time as the surrounding sediment was laid down.
I do not see any disturbance in the overlying Redwall. What are you talking about?
I wasn't talking about joints and fractures at this point. The idea is that water would run across a flat surface in the form of a river and delta too, making a channel in the lower sediment like any river except in this case it's just a recently deposited sediment.
So then, you do accept that landscapes and erosion can occur during certain periods of the local geological history, if you are forced to look at the facts.
The Geo Column is a term used by many people and I really don't pay much attention to Pressie's posts.
Well, that's pretty obvious.
I don't care about some pedantic definition. The word refers to any stack of strata that is associated with an identifiable ancient time period on the Geo Timescale.
But no one uses it the way that you do. This is a problem. To everyone else, all rocks are part of 'the' Geological Column.
Try "marine environment." Whatever you think existed at the site of a rock in which you found fossils and other clues to this "environment." Which didnt exist although you think it did.
Why not?
You keep making these pronouncements without any explanation. You say, "It's impossible" and "It never existed".
Give us some evidence that you are correct. Argument by assertion is a tired old YEC strategy.
Ah yes. Seafloors. On top of a rock. Well, that's a sort of landscape, an "environment."
Yes, an environment that you say does not exist.
Supposedly representing the rock now on top of that rock. A seafloor all neatly packaged up in a slab of rock. And after it's become a rock a new seafloor appears on top of it, ...
Actually, not the case.
... which is also eventually reduced to a rock. New collection of flora and fauna. Etc. So you look at a wall of the Grand Canyon and you see one seafloor on top of another seafloor? Except where it's a landscape on top of a seafloor on top of a landscape or whatnot.
The problem being?
Oh, right ... it's impossible.
I don't think this post is as clear as it should be.
That is because your thinking is muddled by a lack of tools for critical analysis and deluded by an ancient mythology that you have to satisfy.
Perhaps I can do better later.
Your devotion to myth will make that 'impossible'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 08-06-2016 9:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 12:20 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 383 of 1257 (788946)
08-08-2016 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Faith
08-08-2016 12:20 PM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
What's happened to the seafloor when it's become a rock?
Well, the sediments are eventually lithified with burial.
What's happened to the landscape when it's become a rock?
The landscape is preserved as a discontinuous set of rocks set upon an unconformity after burial and lithification.
What happened to the marine life that populated that seafloor; ...
It is eventually fossilized.
... or to the land life that populated that landscape?
Mostly eroded away unless preserved in a lacustrine, fluvial or volcanic environment.
Where did they go?
Well, some a still there.
A seafloor became a rock, a landscape became a rock, ...
Well, the sediments deposited at those locations become part of the rock record.
... there is nothing else left of the time period, no landscape, no seafloor, no marine life, no land life.
Actually, a lot of them are still there.
A seafloor can't become a rock, or a rock in a stack of rocks;...
Why not?
... therefore there never was a seafloor.
Why not?
Because you say so?
There was probably a very wet sediment full of marine life and that's all.
The problem being?
A landscape can't become a rock, or a rock in a stack of rocks; ...
Why not?
... therefore there never was a landscape.
Not true as far as I can tell.
There must have been a wet sediment full of land life and that's all.
Or a landscape that is submerged and buried in sediments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 12:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 1:32 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 390 of 1257 (788954)
08-08-2016 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Faith
08-08-2016 1:32 PM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
No more seafloor; no more marine life that lived there.
Why not? There is still a sea. There are still rivers flowing. There are still mountains being eroded to the sea.
When something dies it is buried in the constant rain of sediments and living things go on living.
Life has to start all over again with each new time period because everything that lived during it is gone.
Not at all. Life is continuous and sedimentation is continuous. Living things are unburied.
Into the rock. Replaced by another. Higher on the evolutionary ladder according to y'all, but if the whole thing is gone, kaput, extinct, fossilized in the rock, there's no life left to evolve.
Yes, the dead ones go into the rock. As fossils.
I don't see your problem.
I don't grasp the "discontinuous set of rocks set upon an unconformity after burial and lithification" ...
Remember how I said that terrestrial sediments are preserved in small basins, surrounded by erosion? Think of a lake, or a sandbar.
... but I grasp that you agree it has become preserved AS a set of rocks.
Well, it is preserved 'within' a set of rocks'. We don't usually talk about unconformities becoming rocks.
Again, what had been living in that landscape is no longer living,...
Not really. It is a changing landscape that is either receiving sediment or being eroded. Continuously.
... it's all now buried in rocks. No life left to evolve to the next landscape/set of rocks.
No. Life continues to exist, just a sedimentation and erosion continue to happen.
We see this even now in places where soils continually develop, one civilization on top of another.
All of it, of course.
No, only the dead creatures.
Dead and buried and eventually to be fossilized. Because there is no place else for it to go.
Only the dead things. The living go on living. The stay on top of the sediment. On top of the soil.
So there is nothing left of it, it's all dead and buried, and there's no life left from that marine life on that seafloor to evolve to the next seafloor.
I'm not sure where you get this idea. We see fossils being buried in the Gulf of Mexico to day and we see human habitations being covered by soil. Today.
Somehow ...
Somehow??? That's your theory? "Somehow ..."
... another seafloor emerges nevertheless, on top of this one that was just buried since that's all that's left of it, just rock with dead things in it.
Actually, it's sediments with dead things in it until later when it is lithified.
How another could emerge when the previous life forms were all dead is of course a puzzle.
Yes, for you, it's a puzzle.
For us, it's just a matter of living things continuing to live on the surface of the sediment (or within the sediment for some).
Well, perhaps we've got the sea transgression to account for the seafloor itself, depending on which time period we're talking about, but since everything in the previous seafloor is dead and buried it's hard to see how there could have been any continuity of living things from one time period to the next.
Another impenetrable mystery of da fludde!!
Eroded away means gone gone gone. Extinct? But some lived on in lakes or rivers etc. Which in this case became the rock in which they were buried, so even those that were preserved are now gone gone gone too, buried in the rock to eventually become fossilized. All that's left of the landscape is that rock. And other landscape begins on top of that rock with a whole new collection of life forms, though since the previous life forms are gone gone gone it's hard to imagine how a new collection could have arisen at all.
Actually, erosion does not mean 'gone, gone, gone'. Look it up.
It only means that materials above sea level can be destroyed or transported to the sea.
But there's no "there" for them to be there. There's just the rock which the landscape became, with its life forms all dead and buried there. So exactly *where* could some of them still be?
Well, some are still there as fossils. However, the living ones keep on living on top of the sediment and on top of the soil.
This isn't rocket science, Faith.
Ah well, if you don't see it I don't suppose anything I say will make you see it. I keep looking for new ways to express all this but haven't been coming up with any. Maybe if I do I can eventually answer this question so you can see it.
I believe I asked 'why not?'.
You do not answer my question.
Oh it's all there in reality. First you have to see how your explanation of all this is physically impossible.
I asked 'why not?'
Just saying, "It's impossible" is not an answer to my question.
You really SHOULD know the answer to this, but I guess you don't.
Saying that I should know the answer is not an answer.
Can't be, as I've said above, ...
Repeating your statement is not answering a question.
Again, they didn't go somewhere else. We know this because they are buried in the rock where you say their landscape had existed and in which they had lived, and there they are IN the rock. We don't find them in some other rock, just the rock of their own "time period."
Not really. The living ones moved on, and evolved. You only find the dead ones. As fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 1:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 9:06 PM edge has replied
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 9:32 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 405 of 1257 (788973)
08-08-2016 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Faith
08-08-2016 4:42 PM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
What I was doing was following out the logic of the Geological position, not my own.
In that case, your understanding of the mainstream geological position is hopelessly distorted.
I came to that conclusion from the evidence I gave. No surprise to me, standard Geology is indeed disconnected from reality.
You have given us no evidence other than to say that mainstream historical geology is impossible.
When I ask you why, you say that 'I should know'. That is not an explanation, it is an assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 4:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 406 of 1257 (788974)
08-08-2016 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Faith
08-08-2016 3:50 PM


Of course the rock wasn't replaced, I wasn't clear enough there. The landscape was replaced by a new landscape, that became rock in its turn.
If erosion is complete, yes the landscape is replaced.
However, this conflicts with your earlier statements that there are no landscapes in the geological record other than the Great Unconformity (which by the way, you refused to accept as an unconformity earlier this year).
By the way I'm glad you affirm original horizontality Perhaps you are unaware that Percy has declared it false and said I can't use the idea.
Original horizontality is not universally applied. There are original beds that are not horizontal. We have shown you some examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 3:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(4)
Message 407 of 1257 (788975)
08-08-2016 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Coyote
08-08-2016 2:33 PM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
Your explanations for things are becoming increasingly divorced from reality.
Faith digs her heels in deeper and deeper. This is what happens to a religious position.
This is also a good part of why most folks pay no attention to the claims made by creationists.
Ultimately, all you can do is tune the YECs out. YEC will die out, but we can expect some shrill defenses in the meantime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2016 2:33 PM Coyote has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 419 of 1257 (789007)
08-09-2016 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Faith
08-08-2016 9:32 PM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
OK, while your landscape is being built I guess, that imaginary landscape. When it becomes a rock though, then there's no place for the creatures to live.
Sure there is. The landscape is not preserved in rock until it is deeply buried and the process of lithification can occur. In the meantime, far above it, life continues and sediment continues to be deposited.
Do you really think that sediments and soils just 'turn to rock' at the surface of the earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 9:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Faith, posted 08-09-2016 12:46 PM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024