Summations Only

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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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.") 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. \
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. Perhaps later when I have a clearer idea what you aren't getting. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.

That can only be seen by those who refuse to actually look at the details as has been pointed out to you numerous times. The layers in the Grand Canyon were not all originally straight and flat and the Grand Canyon is not the whole Earth.As has been explained, the actual makeup of any geological column is location dependent and will reflect the landscape of that location over time. Trying to claim that what is seen in pictures taken at a great distance of one location reflects what exists all over the world is simply silly.In areas that were under water in the past (note that time must get included) will show marine type deposits. Areas that were above the water will show aeolian type deposits. Areas covered by magma will show specific characteristics and show whether the magma was released above or below water and whether it cooled above or below water. Areas cover by volcanic ash will show specific ash characteristics. Areas built up by direct biological activities (coral reefs) will show different characteristics than areas built up by accumulation of small non-fixed biological entities. Areas built up from the remains of living creatures (bogs and coal and tundra and peat) will show specific characteristics.Over the last few hundred years a fairly wide survey of the Earth Geology from many locations around the planet has been conducted. We no longer have to rely solely on locations like the Grand Canyon as our knowledge base.What has been found Faith is just what has been pointed out to you numerous times. The geology of any given spot on Earth reflects characteristics common to the geological properties listed above. What has been found is that at each location examined a sequence of materials reflecting various geological processes is indicated and the exact order of those geological materials varies.During the examination of the various places on Earth over the last few hundred years evidence of living critters has been found. Interestingly the nature of the critter corresponds to the nature of the geological materials where the sample is found, terrestrial critters in terrestrial materials and sea critters in sea deposits even when the current surface does not correspond.The existence of the biological samples and the correspondence of critter to environment as seen in the materials that surround the sample show that the critter lived in a specific type of landscape that is reflected by the materials it is buried in.But wait, there is more...while the materials indicate the same processes happening over time from the earliest examples to the most recent, the biological samples so a unique ordering, an evolution of forms over time. Again, this too has been pointed out to you numerous times.What you need to do is provide a convincing theory that can explain what is seen in both the geological and biological samples; not a theory that convinces YOU but rather a theory that convinces Science.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

The USGS has a pretty extensive body of web pages meant to help folk understand the geology (landscapes) of North America. The Our Changing Content page is relevant to this topic. It includes several good drawings showing relative landscape changes over time restricted to just this continent.I will include three specific maps relevant to this topic:The first shows the landscapes of the area during the Pennsylvanian period which was around 300 Million years ago. What is seen (based on the actual geological materials from that period) are deep sea, plains, swamps, shallow seas, low hills, higher hills and mountains. Pretty much the same types of landscapes we see on Earth today.Next is from the Cretaceous period that was from around 150 Million years ago until around 65 Million years ago. Way back in Message 136 I posted links to maps that show additional landscape variations during the Cretaceous period. What is seen is deep sea, plains, swamps, shallow seas, low hills, higher hills, volcanoes and mountains. Pretty much the same types of landscapes we see on Earth today. But notice the locations of the specific landscapes have moved.The third drawing is of the Pleistocene Period which was really pretty recent, only 2.5 Million years ago until only about 11,000 years ago. This last drawing does show a different and unique landscape. There are still mountains and hills and lakes and seas and plains and rivers and all the things we see today but the BIG feature is a vast ice sheet covering much of North America. Again, it is based on the geological materials and features from that period.Now folk can try to argue about the dates, futile as that is, or say they just won't accept such long periods of time but what is not open to argument is the fact that what is represented are landscapes that vary over time.Edited by jar, : add link to other maps of the Cretaceous North America

I would think that "razor-tight" contacts would require the bottom layer to be hardened before the top layer was deposited. We don't see razor-tight contacts in the peanut butter jar where all of the layers were deposited in one event.

Except as you have been shown numerous times that is just not true. Each time period is not independent of every other and each time period does not come down to a slab of rock. Those are just stupid ignorant assertions.The geology of any time period varies by both location and time. You have been show that. You certainly should have learned at least that much in the over a decade you have been posting here.In addition no time period simply ended and another started. The processes were continuous, all one time period, that humans later divided up into smaller increments for clarity and common communication and discussion.The composition of the geology at any given point will show many different processes happening over a sequence of time and they are exactly the same processes that are going on today.Think. Examine real evidence instead of fantasy stories. Look at the cores seen in the images shown here.Look at them.None show just a slab of rock.Each show a sequential layering of materials created by different processes. Not just a few samples but lots and lots of samples. Lots and lots of real actual existing hard facts.The Illinois State Geological collection contains over 70,000 sets and over 15,000 cores covering over 1.5 Billion years.The State of Kentucky has another extensive collection as do most states and the Federal government. The Kentucky collection covers over 1.9 Billion years and a sample from every one of those black dots shown below and on the map in the linked page. You need to understand that the geologists and biologists and paleontologists and archeologists are not just working from fiction or imagination but rather millions of actual facts and not from some collection of anonymous stories filled with internal inconsistencies, contradictions and factual errors.AbE:As pointed out earlier; if we look at the geology what we find is unordered layers of similar materials. We find sedimentary layers and igneous layers and organic layers and marine layers and aeolian layers all stacked vertically with different ordering depending on the location examined.But when we look at the fossil evidence we find an entirely different pattern.Biological samples are ordered and in a non-repeating pattern whether we are discussing animals or plants. What we see is a clear evolution of lifeforms that is similar across the whole record. We never find latter forms mixed with earlier forms. The ordering of the biological samples, the record of landscapes, is laid out like a storyboard, like a series of time lapse pictures. The oldest samples show no critters with skeletons. Next we find exoskeletons, then backbones. The first plants are all asexual, then we find sexual reproduction by spores then seeds then pollen.The ordering in biological samples always is evolutionary, changing over time; the types of materials seen in the geological samples are pretty constant over all time. Sedimentary rocks are made the same way they always were. Shale, limestone, lava, ash... the processes simply repeat.The fossils are absolute evidence of a succession of landscapes over vast periods of time where the geological processes continued and repeated but the biological processes themselves changed producing new and unique specimens.What you need to provide is a convincing explanation of how those biological samples got where they are found and ordered as found in reality and an explanation that is sufficient to convince not you, not creationists, not believers in some Biblical flood but general Science.Anything less is just a total, utter and complete failure.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

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. 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. I do not see any disturbance in the overlying Redwall. What are you talking about? 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. Well, that's pretty obvious. 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. 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. Yes, an environment that you say does not exist. Actually, not the case. The problem being?Oh, right ... it's impossible. 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. Your devotion to myth will make that 'impossible'.

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.

Well, the sediments are eventually lithified with burial. The landscape is preserved as a discontinuous set of rocks set upon an unconformity after burial and lithification. It is eventually fossilized. Mostly eroded away unless preserved in a lacustrine, fluvial or volcanic environment. Well, some a still there. Well, the sediments deposited at those locations become part of the rock record. Actually, a lot of them are still there. Why not? Why not?Because you say so? The problem being? Why not? Not true as far as I can tell. Or a landscape that is submerged and buried in sediments.

If the sediment is full of marine life and it has water on it doesn't that make it a "seafloor"?Edited by NosyNed, : fixed tags

Lots of sea floor became mountains which is why you find marine fossils embeded in mountains.Sea floors do become rock constantly. In fact most sea floors begin as rock.Faith this is all stuff people have gone over for you for over a decade.

Surely you're not questioning the method by which sedimentary rock is formed?You seem to have a picture in your mind that sediment gathers, then stops gathering and hardens into rock therefore changing the sea floor into rock with nothing on top of it; is that the case?

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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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? 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?" 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. See answer to above. Oh it's all there in reality. First you have to see how your explanation of all this is physically impossible. Not a landscape, just an expanse of wet sediment. You really SHOULD know the answer to this, but I guess you don't. It's all in everything I said above, not to mention other posts. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

What strange ideas you have. Do you imagine that all life is immortal with no birth and death ? No. All life dies, eventually, and some of those that die become fossils, But many of the dead leave descendants, and so life continues.Even after the greatest mass extinctions we know of some life survived and left descendants. Your idea to the contrary is just a fiction of your own invention.

No. Why do you say that? None of the rocks in the geological record have been "replaced", that is why they are still there. Quite flat, yes. You remember how in my book I discussed the principle of original horizontality? This is how sediment is deposited by real processes, and so is not evidence of deposition by magical processes.

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. Not at all. Life is continuous and sedimentation is continuous. Living things are unburied. Yes, the dead ones go into the rock. As fossils.I don't see your problem. Remember how I said that terrestrial sediments are preserved in small basins, surrounded by erosion? Think of a lake, or a sandbar. Well, it is preserved 'within' a set of rocks'. We don't usually talk about unconformities becoming rocks. Not really. It is a changing landscape that is either receiving sediment or being eroded. Continuously. 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. No, only the dead creatures. Only the dead things. The living go on living. The stay on top of the sediment. On top of the soil. 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??? That's your theory? "Somehow ..." Actually, it's sediments with dead things in it until later when it is lithified. 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). Another impenetrable mystery of da fludde!! 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. 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. I believe I asked 'why not?'.You do not answer my question. I asked 'why not?'Just saying, "It's impossible" is not an answer to my question. Saying that I should know the answer is not an answer. Repeating your statement is not answering a question. Not really. The living ones moved on, and evolved. You only find the dead ones. As fossils.