Summations Only

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). Original horizontality is not universally applied. There are original beds that are not horizontal. We have shown you some examples.

Faith digs her heels in deeper and deeper. This is what happens to a religious position. Ultimately, all you can do is tune the YECs out. YEC will die out, but we can expect some shrill defenses in the meantime.

How can there be? It's become a rock. You said so yourself. If it's a marine sedinment/rock then it probably spanned the whole continent and then some as you also said was the case with the marine layers. They cover this enormous expanse very flat. Where are the mountains and the rivers etc? But where do they go on living? All there is of the seafloor or the landscape is the rock. Yes and we all know this is true in reality, but the actual situation that would occur with the rock-landscape-rock scenario leaves nothing living. You know things continue living just because we all know that, but you haven't recognized that if time periods are connected to rocks it can't be true. You assert it anyway because we all know it's true, but you haven't faced the fact that it's true in spite of your theory, in spite of the whole "depositional landscapes" scenario in which a landscape becomes a rock. If THAT's true then your statement about life being continuous and sedimentation is continuous is false. If you honestly think through the implications of the strata you have to see that life couldn't continue. If life continues, as we know it does, you have the wrong theory about the fossils in the rocks: the Geologic Timescale is false.We have a landscape for a particular time period, perhaps the Devonian, it built on the rock that represents the previous time period. The Devonian creatures live on it, then eventually it becomes a rock and they have no place to live. They didn't go anywhere else because there is no place else they got buried and fossilized, only in this rock which represents their time period which is represented by this particular landscape that then became a rock. Sorry I am about that. The thing is I answered you with that GS-GC cross section which shows that the terrestrial layers aren't confined to basins, lakes or sandbars, but extend just as the marine layers do for many thousands of square miles, quite flat and straight and not at all basin-shaped. I have yet to see such an example. I see no unconformities in the terrestrial layers of that cross-section. There is no evidence of that in the strata. There is a rock, a rock among rocks in a stack, and you've agreed that the landscape or seafloor became that rock. But again we all know this, but it is at odds with the evidence of the strata and the Geologic Timescale. It's rock to landscape to rock on which nothing could remain living if it were true. If sedimentation made the rock and erosion did away with the landscape that was there for a while, all there is left is the rock with dead things in it. There is no place for any remaining living things to live. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the whole theory of the Geologic Timescale and the strata and their landscapes is false. And of course that would be true where civilizations are building and there is plenty of evidence of the processes involved. But the landscapes you imagine in the strata left no evidence. A few tracks, a few burrows, some ripple marks. There is no landscape there for things to live in. A bare rock with a few tracks, etc. There is nothing but the surfaces of a rock up against the surface of another rock. But there is nothing there for them to live on when their landscape is becoming a rock, just "soil" becoming rock. That's the problem with landscapes becoming rock. Whatever lived in them can't go on living. And again they didn't go anywhere else either because this is where they were fossilized, in the very rock that was their landscape. You don't mean fossils, you mean creatures that you figure will become fossils? The thing about the human habitations is that they remain identifiable as human habitations even after they are buried. Not so the stratigraphic "landscapes" including "seafloors" that simply disappear completely into the rock, leaving just bits and pieces of things that eventually got fossilized. You might claim anything left living went somewhere else when their landscape became unlivable rock, which would of course be the case with the buried human habitations. But the problem is that there isn't any sign of them anywhere else, they didn't get buried and fossilized anywhere else, they got buried and fossilized in this very rock which you say was their landscape, this and only this rock or "time period."Getting worn out. Hope to finish soon.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, it's not my theory that a landscape or seafloor emerged on top of a rock, but according to Geo theory somehow it did. Sedimentation I guess. Then somehow things grew, and then somehow.... Correction accepted. It should be for you too. 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. Really it's a mystery of the Geologic Timescale. That's the whole point of everything I'm saying. You've invented landscapes and you assert that things go on living after I've pointed out that your scenario makes that impossible: in the circumstances inevitably created by the scenario of the strata this is impossible, as I've explained to death many times already. A landscape that becomes a rock means the landscape is gone gone gone and so is everything that lived in it that got buried. Yeah, that's a nice irrelevant abstract statement, but you aren't thinking about the actual situation I'm at such pains to get across to you: a landscape becoming a rock in which are buried the creatures that supposedly lived in that landscape, which represents their "time period." Again there is no sign they went anywhere else because this rock is the only place their fossils are found.
. And where do they go when the sediment for the next "time period" comes along, which hosts a brand new collection of living things and (with the occasional exception I suppose) they don't belong there? Their fossils are found in their own rock/"time period", not the next rock. Where do they go? I've been answering it and answering and answering it. WHERE? Where did the living ones move to? Why don't we find their fossils anywhere else but in their own rock/time period? Where is their landscape? It all became a rock. Now you are inventing another whole imaginary scenario unconnected with the strata, for which there isn't even the evidence of a fossil in a rock.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. Not "somehow". We know exactly how real processes work and can point to them happening and observe them. This makes real geology entirely different from your vague daydreams.

No. We have explained to you the logic of the geological position. It is entirely different from the crazy crap that you have made up in your head.

No.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

WHERE? Where did the living ones move to?

---

In general, they did not. They didn't have to. Oh, in cases where the environment changed significantly or there was a major disaster the local populations might be forced to move elsewhere or even die out. But there will often be other environments to move to, and other populations of the species. You certainly aren't going to see all life on Earth wiped out that way as you claim.

quote:

---

Why don't we find their fossils anywhere else but in their own rock/time period?

---

Really Faith, I find it hard to believe that you could honestly say that. Fossils are found in rocks deposited at the time the orginal creature died. If the life present on the planet changed over time, then we should see that change reflected in the fossil record - and in fact that is the only reasonable explanation for the fossil record as we see it.Or to put it simply, if a species went extinct 150 million years ago, we should not expect to find fossils of that species in rocks formed from sediment deposited 50 million years ago. If you think otherwise you are going to have to come up with an explanation.And before you argue that extinction supports your claim, just remember this: you deny evolution but your opponents here do not. Distant descendants do not have to be the same species as their ancestors.

Precisely. Why don't we find certain fossils anywhere else but in their own rock/time period? Why do we find the fossils in precisely the order that we do find them?That was also Dr. Adequate's question in the op, Message 1, of his topic, The Great Creationist Fossil Failure. We have a very reasonable answer. Do you have one? Now that you have finally come to asking the same questions as we, are you finally ready to have an honest and open discussion about it?In your posts, I see a recurring theme of you expressing bizarre ideas about about what you think that geologists say and think, ideas that are completely foreign to what they actually think and say. Yes, by fooling yourself into thinking that that is what they are saying that makes it much easier for you to dismiss those foolish ideas as the complete nonsense that they are. But all those crazy ideas are your own, not the geologists'. By claiming that your crazy ideas are the geologists' own ideas, you are bearing false witness. And your Christian testimony informs us that Christians have to lie about what is said by those they disagree with. Is that really what you want your Christian testimony to say?I have told you before and I have to say it yet again: learn something about geology and about how things actually work in the real world. You have explicitly refused to learn. You have explicitly refused to even talk with a geologist (so how could you ever know what a geologist thinks?). You insist on keeping yourself ignorant and deluded, which is your witness that your Christianity needs to keep its followers ignorant and deluded in order to survive.Sorry, but an actual creationist would believe that God had created the world and the universe; in effect, God Wrote the World. In contrast, Man wrote the Bible and devised the theologies which dictate how to interpret the Bible, each in its own way (please also note that you had written of the need to be carefully guided by Man in how to "properly" interpret the Bible, so it is not the Bible that you follow, but rather your own particular Man-made theology). When there is a conflict between what God HimSelf had written in the Universe and what Man has said in his Man-made theology, why do you always side with Man instead of with God? Why do you claim to be a creationist when you by the fact of your deeds and words are not?Now, stop and think for a moment. And please think in terms of how the real world actually and really works, not in terms of your crazy ideas which have nothing at all to do with reality.There is a surface which is part of the biosphere, what we are referring to as a "landscape", even though we can also be talking about a sea bottom. It gets covered, either slowly or rapidly. If rapidly (eg, annual flooding), then the organisms that were not buried (eg, adults and/or their larvae in bordering non-flooded areas or larvae still afloat at the time of burial) are still living and can repopulate the new surface. We have sites where we can see entire ecologies (eg, worm burrows) that were buried in situ and then in the layer above it we see another entire ecology of worm burrows et alia, and above that another layer containing an entire ecology. Exactly as we currently observe in the real world. So in your "year-long Fludde", exactly how did it work out that layer after layer of complete ecologies could have established themselves on top of each other?Learn something about geology. Learn something about the real world. Learn something about the real-world evidence. If you need to, then talk to a geologist! Don't talk to a creationist, because he will always lie to you. But if you do talk to a creationist, then verify everything that that creationist had told you. By learning that that creationist had lied to you, you should hopefully have learned something.Faith, do you watch any TV? When I'm home alone, I always have the TV on. Do you watch any "science channels"? I put those into quotation marks, since the age of specialized cable channels are long past us. Do you remember Arts and Entertainment (A&E)? The fine arts, concerts, ballet, opera (I still remember an eastern European film set to Dvorak's "New World Symphony"; lovely). The Learning Channel (TLC)? Educational programming, nature shows. Etc, etc, etc, etc ... . And The History Channel providing us with program after program about actual history. Then what happened? Ratings! A cable channel came up with a show that grabbed ratings and then all the cable channels started grabbing the ratings, mainly with "reality shows". And they all became the same. Before my divorce (her choice, not mine, though she turned out to be such a .... ) I would read the comics page of the local newspaper. One strip referred to a set of cable channels as "The Testosterone Channel" since most of their programming was about WWII and other military matters and that comic strip's author was entirely correct.And yet, wonders of wonders!!!!, the science channels do sometimes deal with science and the history channels do sometimes deal with science. Who'd a thunk?There are a number of archaeological programs that examine excavation sites. Guess what a common factor of all those sites is! They are all buried!!!!
Another member here had alluded to that. A community is established. Litter, dirt, whatever builds up. A new house gets built atop an old house. Does the old house get excavated out and its foundations removed? No, the new house gets built atop it. So where did the new tenants of that site reside? Atop what they had built atop the former residents of that site. And so on and so forth.Faith, for eight years from high school through my first college degree, I worked in construction with my father, a master carpenter and general contractor. In our excavations and remodel work, I had seen a lot about old construction. Members here who have worked on actual archaeological sites have seen so much more than I.The prevailing pattern that I have seen has been a layering of new over old. Over and over and over and over and over again.The evidence is there.

quote:

---

The thing about the human habitations is that they remain identifiable as human habitations even after they are buried.

---

Really that depends on what is left and how expert the eye. I wouldn't think that a wooden dwelling that has rotted away would leave much that you would recognise.And really you miss the essential point. Modern humans live on the modern surface - and to become rock a surface is going to be buried more deeply than archaeological remains. So THAT is where the life "moved" to - the new surface formed by the sediment that is being deposited.

quote:

---

You might claim anything left living went somewhere else when their landscape became unlivable rock, which would of course be the case with the buried human habitations

---

Generally it's the same for both. People and animals live on the surface as it is today, not deeply buried surfaces from long ago. It really is that simple.So, no, the landscape becoming rock isn't a problem for anything living there because at that time there isn't anything living there. The life is all up above, on the surface that existed then.

No Faith, that is not what you were doing. What you actually did was to totally misrepresent what has been explained to you over and over and over again. You were showing either total dishonesty or the inability to comprehend even the most basic facts.Let me repeat since you seem to have missed what was said:

quote:

---

No one but you has ever said anything that stupid.

​

Let me try yet again to keep it simple enough that you can understand.

​

Nothing unusual happens. Things continue just as they are today and have been happening on Earth for Billions of years.

​

Go back and slowly read Message 19. All of your questions are answered there and the process fully explained.

​

Look at the maps linked in Message 136 and Message 378 and Message 380.

​

Change has been continuous since the Earth took form.

​

As the land changed critters moved.

​

With change critters moved but the life span of even the longest lived critter is still very short. Life never started all over again and your fantasy as expressed above is simply silly.

​

The time periods are a human construct we created to aid in understanding but for the critters living during those times it was of no more significance than pointing out that you are living during the Holocene period.

​

The two significant factors though are:

​

that the geological processes have remained constant over the whole life of the Earth.

​

that the biological critters have not remained constant over time and the remains are grouped by common characteristics in an ordered fashion.

​

Your claim of "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." is more nonsense and not anything anyone has told you.

​

There is no such thing as higher evolved. Let me repeat; there is no such thing as higher evolved.

​

There is change. Not higher change and lower change but just change. And the sole judge of how effective the change was is simply whether or not the species lives long enough to reproduce.

---

AbE:Also, you have not yet given any evidence. Period.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

I've actually seen archaeological reports that deal with buildings rotted away or destroyed by fire. If conditions are right, the patterns of nails in the soil can give a lot of information about the locations and sometimes even the types of buildings that were there!

And even from pre-nail civilizations the positions of holes in the ground where poles once were positioned as well as things like remains of fire pits and middens can provide lots of evidence.

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?

I fail to see why this is so. Why couldn't living things simply move around on top of the sediments and avoid being buried?This seems to be a recurring misunderstand among YECs. In their scenario, sediments must be raining down so quickly that anything on the bottom of the sea is instantly killed. That would be a logical conclusion if you look at the duration of the fludde and how much sedimentary rock is present on the earth.But no, it doesn't happen that way. There is no evidence except in local situations where there is an mass kill of any organisms. I do not see any logical connection here. Why is that? But I don't see the fossil record as a mass kill. There are a number of reasons for that, perhaps you would be interested in discussing it. I'm trying but I can't seem to connect with your line of reasoning. I think it is because you have two issues.First, you see a strawman version of evolution and old ages; then you add on the notion of a mass-kill where all life must end at some point (the fludde), and you come up with some kind a of nonsensical story. Only in your scenario. There is no problem is you accept long ages, evolution and changing environments ... all supported by solid evidence. That's not correct. In the Devonian there were lots of environments on earth ... just like we see them today. What do you mean by 'becomes rock'? That does not happen until long after that sediment and its fossil inhabitants are buried and lithified.I guess this fits with the old YEC idea that the Grand Canyon was cut in a matter of days immediately after the sediments were deposited. Now, if you want to have an impossible scenario, that's it. Basically, rocks do not lithify rapidly at the surface. Nonsense. Each of these strata took many thousands of years to lithify. There was plenty of time for the creatures to move on or evolve.