Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 344 of 1257 (788782)
08-04-2016 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by edge
08-04-2016 3:51 PM


Re: The Imaginary Time Period Landscapes
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by edge, posted 08-04-2016 3:51 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 4:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 347 of 1257 (788787)
08-04-2016 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by PaulK
08-04-2016 4:06 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 4:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 5:08 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 351 by edge, posted 08-04-2016 8:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 348 of 1257 (788788)
08-04-2016 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by PaulK
08-04-2016 4:07 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
No. I'm trying just to picture the very forefront of the rising Flood, assuming it's building the strata with each new wave. But if the strata were precipitated out after the Flood was at its full height that would be a completely different scenario I'm also considering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 4:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 5:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 353 of 1257 (788808)
08-05-2016 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by jar
08-04-2016 9:22 PM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
Beautifully told standard propaganda. Not a hint that it's physically impossible for there ever to have been the landscapes invented out of the rocks in which the so-nicely-ordered former life forms supposedly lived. It's all quite plausible in a Just-So sort of way if you don't think about that extreme implausibility of turning a landscape into a slab of rock. All you've got is rocks, nothing but rocks, and you make up whole worlds to have existed within those rocks. The absurdity is staggering, but it's more staggering how it is rationalized away.
So let the denials begin.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by jar, posted 08-04-2016 9:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by foreveryoung, posted 08-05-2016 1:20 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 355 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 7:46 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 356 of 1257 (788826)
08-05-2016 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2016 11:47 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
I think you're forgetting the compaction part of the lithification process. The flat layer of rock that you see today wasn't so flat and thin when it was on the surface in the past. It's been smashed down by all the new surfaces on top of it. All the normal surface conditions were there when it was on top, it just later got covered in more layers of stuff that compacted it down.
No amount of compaction would change "all the normal surface conditions" of any surface on the earth now or ever into straight flat rock. Hills, valleys, riverbeds, lake basins, deep tree roots, no.
Same answer to your Message 266 where you say compression would have made the strata appear flatter. Not unless the compressing weight was flat itself, and that would be true of the strata themselves whose weight would certainly have enormously compacted lower layers. But not if the sediment being compressed had any of the lumpiness of a normal surface of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2016 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 11:03 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 362 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2016 11:55 AM Faith has replied
 Message 367 by edge, posted 08-05-2016 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 358 of 1257 (788828)
08-05-2016 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by jar
08-05-2016 7:46 AM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
Good start on the Denial Brigade. Changing the topic to put the creationist in the hot seat is often an effective tactic too.
What we have is not just rocks but rather rocks that contain the absolute proof of those other landscapes. Where the leaf fell a tree grew. Where the critter died the critter lived.
Yes, what we have is not just a stack of drawers as it were, but drawers with socks in them or knives and forks or loose change and rubber bands, which is absolute proof that where the drawers are now there used to be a whole level of the building occupied with socks or cutlery or loose change and rubber bands.
Y'all look at the layers, the slabs of rocks in say the walls of the Grand Canyon, which appear as a stack of layers to a great depth. You dig in one or another of them and discover fossilized marine life, or a leaf from a tree of a certain type and you imagine those things are indicative of the surface of the earth in the time period associated with that rock, and you mentally construct that surface or landscape out of the once-living things peculiar to that rock. At least a tell in which a series of settlements have been stacked one on top of another contains the actual remains of those settlements, but these rocks are rocks, with the most minuscule "clues" to your imaginary former landscape contained in them.
Sorta like reading tea leaves at the bottom of a teacup.
I would think if you stood back again and once again saw the wall of rock slabs from a distance you'd have to consider it just as absurd as I do that any given rock in that neat stack was EVER part of such a landscape.
But it's become too ingrained in Geology for that disillusionment ever to happen. And it's more fun to make creationists jump and dance anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 7:46 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 11:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 360 of 1257 (788830)
08-05-2016 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by jar
08-05-2016 11:22 AM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
Righto. Good one. Belittle the creationist, that will work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 11:22 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 11:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 363 of 1257 (788834)
08-05-2016 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2016 11:55 AM


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 can somehow be eroded and compacted down to flatness and become a rock like those in the strata of the Geo Column. 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.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2016 11:55 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 1:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 365 by NoNukes, posted 08-05-2016 1:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 366 by edge, posted 08-05-2016 2:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 369 of 1257 (788844)
08-05-2016 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by edge
08-05-2016 2:40 PM


The Temple Butte limestone is far from fitting a normal surface feature. 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.
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. Water will run in patterns that look like rivers and deltas just because that's the way water behaves. 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.
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. 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.
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. The life forms had lived there though, on that very surface. Where did they go? 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. 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. The living things all end up fossilized in the sediment that's all that's left of the landscape. And then we get another brand new scenario bulding on THAT surface. The same thing over and over again, leaving nothing but a sedimentary rock in which living things got fossilized. It's like creating the world from scratch each time. Nothing could survive from each scenario and yet it is assumed the next evolved from it. Impossible but that's the idea.
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'm only talking about the strata of the geo column. It's the strata that were supposedly once landscapes in which their once-living fossils roamed, all the strata in the geo column. 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 that somehow miraculously eroded down and flattened into rock. ALL of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by edge, posted 08-05-2016 2:40 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by edge, posted 08-05-2016 3:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 371 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 3:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 373 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2016 11:57 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 374 of 1257 (788872)
08-06-2016 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by ThinAirDesigns
08-05-2016 5:06 PM


Re: Not miraculaous but rather common and normal
It's why Faith is a twin for George Price -- decide something is true (in this case that strata is all nice and even) and then make sure and not go out and learn that you're wrong.
I never said the strata "is all nice and even." The idea is that it was all originally straight and flat, and this can still be seen in many of the walls of the Grand Canyon.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 08-05-2016 5:06 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by jar, posted 08-06-2016 9:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 375 of 1257 (788873)
08-06-2016 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Dr Adequate
08-05-2016 11:57 PM


ALL of those layers so neatly stacked one on top of another are considered to have once been landscapes that somehow miraculously eroded down and flattened into rock. ALL of them.
Except the ones that either aren't eroded or aren't flat, or which are marine and so would not be considered "landscapes".
You are right that "landscape" doesn't fit the marine environments, but they ARE considered to have been "environments" and to represent the range of life during their "time period" and to have eventually come down to a flat rock, like all the rest in the geo column/strata. That rock now represents that particular time period, whatever is found in the rock considered to be whatever was living in the marine environment when the rock was formed. And that rock was replaced some millions of years later by another rock represented yet another marine environment.
They're all originally flat. All of them. Really, I keep pointing to the walls of the Grand Canyon where they have not been tectonically distorted to show their flatness. Of course if you impute absolutely perfect flatness to what I'm saying you create the usual straw man, because I've said nothing more than that they show flatness from a distance, and in some cases up close as well, even razor-tight flatness at their contacts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2016 11:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by ringo, posted 08-06-2016 1:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 389 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-08-2016 2:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 376 of 1257 (788875)
08-06-2016 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by edge
08-05-2016 3:50 PM


The Temple Butte limestone is far from fitting a normal surface feature.
Why?
First, this is one of the distractions I expected in response to my claims about the impossibility of the scenarios geology has invented. If it's physically impossible for the landscape scenarios to have existed then that is really the end of the discussion and these distractions aren't important.
The Temple Butte intrusion into the Redwall is just one limestone that formed a channel into another. It has a flat surface like the surface it cut through, no normal river bank. Incidental similarities to a river don't make it a river, just a channel that liquid ran through.
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.
Again, asking these things is just a distraction and a form of denial of the point I've been making. But if I have a thought about it I will nevertheless try to answer it. The shape of the channel fits what water does, what's the big deal? IF it ran on the surface at all it would have been during the very brief time it had at the surface during the Flood, rapidlyl followed by the next sediment. Like all the strata of the geo column (which is simply a word for the many stacks of layers that exist in many places) it has a flat upper surface, continuous with the upper surface of the surrounding rock. However it happened it's just a liquid running through a channel in the surrounding rock.
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'.
I wasn't just talking about the Temple Butte but all the places where some dislodged material is found between strata. However, the Temple Butte runs at the surface of the surrounding rock, at the upper joint or contact.
It's also kinda weird that the Redwall did not fall into the cavity created so shortly after deposition.
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.
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...
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.
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?
The point is that water can run in a riverlike pattern on the surface of a wet sediment, even form a delta, in a watery environment that has none of the qualities of a normal surface environment ("landscape.")
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.
I use the word to refer to the many stacks of sediments-turned-to-rock that are found in various places and particularly strikingly in the walls of the Grand Canyon, that are always grouped into time periods.
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?
\
The Geo Column is a term used by many people and I really don't pay much attention to Pressie's posts. 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.
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.
Perhaps later when I have a clearer idea what you aren't getting.
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.
And that's pretty much all that survives of the particular environment associated with that rock because there wouldn't be any other place for them to go. The whole time period is gone, leaving only a sedimentary layer to memorialize itself; a new time period will soon create itself on top of that one.
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.
But whatever timing is involved, and of course I dispute yours, they do get buried. Nothing could survive these scenarios of any of the environments supposed to have existed. They disappear into the rock and are replace by the next environment.
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?
Substitute "marine environment" for "landscape," the idea is still that a whole world of particular life forms lived at a particular time and all that is left of it is this rock. Which looks remarkably like all the other rocks in the stack including the terrestrial rocks.
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.
They represent a time period which amounts to a whole world environment that existed only in that time period and is memorialized only in a slab of rock full of dead trilobites.
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 thing is it ISN'T a continuous process. It can't be. Each time period is independent of every other. Each comes down to a slab of rock.
The same thing over and over again, leaving nothing but a sedimentary rock in which living things got fossilized.
And the problem is?
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.
It's like creating the world from scratch each time.
Not really. It's an ongoing process, just like what we see happening today.
Can't be. There is nothing ongoing about the depositional environments you create out of the rocks. They point to particular environments that had characteristics unique to themselves and utterly disappeared before the next one appeared. There is nothing continuous implied or possible in your scenarios.
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.
Once you've got it all contained within a slab of rock that appears as one layer in a stack of rocks you've completely eliminated the whole "landscape" or "environment." It's ALL in the rock, the "environment" is gone. GEOLOGY did this, I didn't. Geology found all these "environments" in a rock, placed them on the site of the rock itself, gave them millions of years in which their fossilized life supposedly lived, and then replaced them with another rock that covered it completely.
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?
Most of what I'm saying is an attempt to describe things as you all do in order to bring out the absurdity of it. GEOLOGY keeps saying erosion accounts for the shape of the stacked rocks in the fossiliferous strata. If it doesn't have that shape then it's been tectonically distorted.
I'm only talking about the strata of the geo column.
Which you have no understanding of, evidently. There is no the Geological Column.
Sure there is. It's ALL the sedimentary rocks EVERYWHERE that occur in a stack or clearly once did, that can be dated to a time period according to the Geo Timescale. I guess I could call it the Rock Stack instead.
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.
See above. If you want to suggest a different term go ahead. The phenomenon is quite real, those sedimentary rocks found in so many places that frequently have fossils in them and are associated with ancient time periods, eras, aeons and the like, and in some notable cases are stacked a mile deep, such as in the Grand Canyon; and I don't see anything wrong with the term for it but if you do how about Rock Stack?
And you are not talking about landscapes, you are talking about seafloors. As near as I can tell.
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.
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.
Ah yes. Seafloors. On top of a rock. Well, that's a sort of landscape, an "environment." 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, 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.
I don't think this post is as clear as it should be. Perhaps I can do better later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by edge, posted 08-05-2016 3:50 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by jar, posted 08-06-2016 2:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 381 by edge, posted 08-06-2016 3:42 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 382 of 1257 (788945)
08-08-2016 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by edge
08-06-2016 3:42 PM


Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
What's happened to the seafloor when it's become a rock? What's happened to the landscape when it's become a rock? What happened to the marine life that populated that seafloor; or to the land life that populated that landscape? Where did they go? A seafloor became a rock, a landscape became a rock, there is nothing else left of the time period, no landscape, no seafloor, no marine life, no land life.
A seafloor can't become a rock, or a rock in a stack of rocks; therefore there never was a seafloor. There was probably a very wet sediment full of marine life and that's all. A landscape can't become a rock, or a rock in a stack of rocks; therefore there never was a landscape. There must have been a wet sediment full of land life and that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by edge, posted 08-06-2016 3:42 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by edge, posted 08-08-2016 12:33 PM Faith has replied
 Message 384 by NosyNed, posted 08-08-2016 12:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 385 by jar, posted 08-08-2016 1:08 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 386 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2016 1:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 392 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-08-2016 2:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 387 of 1257 (788951)
08-08-2016 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by edge
08-08-2016 12:33 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.
No more seafloor; no more marine life that lived there. Life has to start all over again with each new time period because everything that lived during it is gone. 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.
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.
I don't grasp the "discontinuous set of rocks set upon an unconformity after burial and lithification" but I grasp that you agree it has become preserved AS a set of rocks. Again, what had been living in that landscape is no longer living, it's all now buried in rocks. No life left to evolve to the next landscape/set of rocks.
What happened to the marine life that populated that seafloor; ...
It is eventually fossilized.
All of it, of course. Dead and buried and eventually to be fossilized. Because there is no place else for it to go. 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.
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. How another could emerge when the previous life forms were all dead is of course a puzzle. 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.
... or to the land life that populated that landscape?
Mostly eroded away unless preserved in a lacustrine, fluvial or volcanic environment.
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.
Where did they go?
Well, some a still there.
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?
A seafloor became a rock, a landscape became a rock, ...
Well, the sediments deposited at those locations become part of the rock record.
Now that's a somewhat different wording. You've agreed so far that a landscape does BECOME a rock, the rock we find layered among other rocks in a stack that we might be able to see, say, in the walls of the Grand Canyon. The thing is the sediments are deposited there and only there, "at those locations," and they become rock "at those locations" and the living things that Geology says lived right there where the rock is now, could only have died and been buried right there in that rock, I mean that IS where they are buried, that's where we find their fossils, and the landscape they lived in is supposed to have been right there where the rock is they are buried in, so we know they didn't wander off and get buried somewhere else. So there are no more living things left. Where would they go? How could living things evolve from them to populate the next landscape that gets built on that site on that rock?
... 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.
Where? They lived on that very spot, they got buried on that very spot, so where is this *there* you say a lot of them still are? I think you can look very hard at the particular rock in, say, the Grand Canyon walls, that represents their landscape and their time period, and is full of their fossils, and not see them there if you mean LIVING there. Where is this "there?"
A seafloor can't become a rock, or a rock in a stack of rocks;...
Why not?
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.
... therefore there never was a seafloor.
Why not?
See answer to above.
Because you say so?
Oh it's all there in reality. First you have to see how your explanation of all this is physically impossible.
There was probably a very wet sediment full of marine life and that's all.
The problem being?
Not a landscape, just an expanse of wet sediment.
A landscape can't become a rock, or a rock in a stack of rocks; ...
Why not?
You really SHOULD know the answer to this, but I guess you don't.
... therefore there never was a landscape.
Not true as far as I can tell.
It's all in everything I said above, not to mention other posts.
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.
Can't be, as I've said above, but let's say it is, then everything in it is dead and buried in those sediments, and there is no remaining life on the planet. Every time period has to start all over from scratch. All those supposedly evolving creatures had nothing to evolve from, and since they also got buried in the rock with their landscape nothing could have evolved from them either. No more time periods.
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."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by edge, posted 08-08-2016 12:33 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2016 1:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 390 by edge, posted 08-08-2016 2:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 391 by Coyote, posted 08-08-2016 2:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 393 by jar, posted 08-08-2016 3:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 394 of 1257 (788961)
08-08-2016 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by PaulK
08-08-2016 1:50 PM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
I'm not giving my own ideas, I'm giving a parody, I'm describing what must be the case if the standard theory is true. Absurd isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2016 1:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-08-2016 3:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 397 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2016 3:59 PM Faith 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