Summations Only

The life that lived in that landscape that is now deeply buried? What sort of environment sustains them now? How many life forms can live on mere sediment? Or are we now growing a new landscape?But the problem with that is that a particular landscape is determined from a particular rock, and THAT landscape is now buried very deep, you say. If THAT landscape is now being buried very deep nothing is living on it. So you have a new landscape far above it? Or things are living on mere sediment. But THOSE creatures lived in the landscape that is now deeply buried. That's what you learn from the fossils in the rock that was that landscape.Sorry, I keep repeating myself because it's so absurd.So let's see. What we have NOW is the strata. The rocks, the slabs of rock stacked together. ONE of those rocks was supposedly once the landscape that you are saying is now buried deeply. Presumably already containing the fossils that are now found in it. And you are saying that the life forms that are fossilized there continued to go on living but on sediment (the same sediment of which that rock is made?) far above it. I know, I'm still repeating myself. Let me see if I can cut to the chase.Since what we have now is a time-defined stack of rocks I have to suppose that the deep sediment you say covered this now-deeply-buried landscape is going to become the NEXT rock up. Yes? No? But then the creatures living on it are not the creatures found fossilized in that deeply buried rock. Have they evolved then? And they get buried in that sediment that is deeply covering the rock that is the former landscape? Is that your story? But shouldn't there be fossils of the earlier creatures in this sediment far above that rock? I mean, if as you say they went on living but far above the rock that was their landscape then over the great span of time involved in these things they should have been buried in that new sediment and there should be fossils of them there, ABOVE their original landscape which is the rock where their fossils are always found.This shouldn't be all that hard to follow but I bet you'll make it hard.One way or another the rock-landscape-rock scenario does not hold together. If the landscape is deeply buried then you have the problem of the creatures from that landscape/time period now being found high above it But their fossils are not found there in the strata; they are found in the rock/landscape you say was buried deep.But I suppose maybe the deep sediment eventually eroded down quite a bit anyway, in order to form the next layer in the strata? But now there is no place again for the creatures to live.Any way you look at it the standard thinking about landscapes becoming rocks is absurd and can't have existed. I certainly don't, but then I believe the strata were all laid down as different sediments in a very deep stack in a brief period of time, months at most, by the Flood of course, and the weight of the stack compacted the lower strata so that when the Flood drained away they were in that compressed form and eventually turned to rock as a result. I also think the strata were originally much deeper and the upper layers were washed away in the receding Flood water.But back to YOUR theory: burying your landscape really doesn't explain anything. The living things that you say moved to a higher level of sediment aren't fossilized in any rock except the one now buried, and if that sediment was eroded away instead, they again had no place to live just as in the version I described. Now I suppose maybe you could say they evolved and are no longer the same creatures, and are now getting buried in this sediment above the former landscape, and now THIS sediment gets buried deeply (and of course it isn't the same sediment, it's a different one) with these evolved fossils in it, and a whole new stack of sediment builds up on top of this new buried landscape.Oh it's too absurd even to try to figure it out. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Who said they were still alive? If it is incorporated into the rock record, it was once buried deeply enough for lithification to occur. Correct, it is buried. And that is where the dead fossil things are, unless they have been destroyed. Well, a mere seafloor.It happens, you know. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.The succeeding life communities may be the same or different. Possibly. Depends on a lot of factors. As I said, it depends on a lot of things. Evolution for one. The may contribute to the next layer of fossils or not. It's fairly easy to tell if you have a specific case. Well, then, show us one way. Well, maybe, just maybe they evolved. It could have been a long time, you see. Or, maybe things haven't changed and it looks exactly like the previous layer.So, how does that not hold together? How does sediment erode something? This sentence does not make sense. No. Any way that you look at it, the scenario is absurd. If they didn't evolve, perhaps the didn't change and could now be seen in different layers. It happens. The problem being?Oh, right ... It's impossible ... ... and absurd.According to Faith.

quote:

---

But back to YOUR theory: burying your landscape really doesn't explain anything.

---

It actually answers all your objections, if you bother to understand it. Perhaps that is why you continue to drag this out with your scornful incomprehension

quote:

---

The living things that you say moved to a higher level of sediment aren't fossilized in any rock except the one now buried, and if that sediment was eroded away instead, they again had no place to live just as in the version I described.

---

They don't exactly move up to a higher level, they just stay on the surface rather than allowing the sediment to bury them. Just as people and animals do today.Likewise with erosion - look at the world today. Do you see many areas rendered completely uninhabitable just by erosion ?As I've said more than once before fossils are typically buried in sediments laid down around the time that they died. This should be obvious.So, as the life populating the earth changes - species go extinct and are replaced by others that have already evolved - the fossils from different times show that change. Again this should be obvious,So what is the problem ? What are you actually having trouble with ?

That's easy!Anything that might, or might be construed, to support evolution or old earth.

We did happen to be discussing where the living ones would live. You proposed this very deep sediment that had buried the former landscape in which they had lived. You've got them living on sediment far above the landscape that is now buried deeply under the sediment, which contains fossils of their kind, which today is rock. How can they live above that landscape where their fossils don't occur, but certainly would if they really lived there. But the problem is that before they evolved the original creatures would have died and left fossils in this new layer above where their fossils are found today. If you're now giving a new scenario for how all the time periods developed, it would be very odd if these transplanted creatures did not leave fossils in their new landscape as they did in the former one. But that didn't happen, did it? So the whole story is fiction. Of course if they evolved just in time to be transplanted then that's just a little too pat, don't you think? Especially if this is now the new explanation for how all the strata and their time periods came about. Certainly if nothing had changed hey'd be leaving their fossils in a level above the level that is associated with them in the Geo Timescale. But they didn't, showing this new scenario of deep sediment is false. The sediment is what was eroded, it didn't erode anything. Since it confused you I added a word in brackets to clarify. [qs]One would be, as suggested above, that the original form of the creatures would have died and been buried in this higher layer of sediment before they evolved, but there are no fossils of them in this higher layer.But another I also mentioned is, if this is intended to describe THE way ALL the strata and their fossils formed, it's just too pat, a "just-so" story. But so is the Geo Timescale anyway.And you've also got all this extra sediment on top of the former rock that has to be eroded down to become the next rock in the strata. So each layer follows this pat scheme?Do you really really believe all this stuff you describe?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here is what you said: Who said that they don't occur in the upper layers? On the other hand it's been a very long time so they possibly have evolved.You seem to have this notion that trilobites (for instance) are confined to one layer or one time period. That is not the case. Not a problem. In many cases, they did. I'm not seeing your problem. It didn't? It is? Well, that would be evolution. Why would it be too 'pat'? I'm thinking that you think a lot of things are 'too pat'. But that would be a sign of a robust theory, yes? Well, that would be the case with any explanation of the data, would it not? The time periods are based on rock characteristics and relative age. It's not rocket science, but it works. Actually, they did. You can trace trilobite changes up into the Permian.
Trilobite - Wikipedia Not really. There is no reason for this idea. We are dealing with large amounts of time. So, your problem is that evolution and old ages make too much sense?Okay, that's a new one. I guess I'll just give up on evolution then. No. Since we know that there were eroding land masses throughout geological history, there has always been a source of sediments. This is actually are real problem for floodists. I used to be wrong a lot about geological interpretation, but I'm quite certain on this. And I'm not alone by any means.Let's just look at the odds. Virtually 100% of geologists and other earth scientists agree with me, whereas you are but one person with no science background. Which way would a rational person vote?

quote:

---

We did happen to be discussing where the living ones would live. You proposed this very deep sediment that had buried the former landscape in which they had lived.

---

So, we are discussing where things would be living at the point in time where the older sediment is being lithified. Don't you think that jumping so far into the future is going to confuse the issue ? After all, if you are only worried about whether things are living on that surface it only needs to be covered by later sediment.

quote:

---

You've got them living on sediment far above the landscape that is now buried deeply under the sediment, which contains fossils of their kind, which today is rock. How can they live above that landscape where their fossils don't occur, but certainly would if they really lived there.

---

if it is far above, then we are likely talking about distant descendants of the life that lived on the deeply-buried surface. But what makes you think that we do not find the descendants of older life further up the strata ?This seems to be only your assumption, not a real problem.

Faith, if you are going to critique the opposing side's position, then you must at the very least present it honestly.You complain that when a surface, a "landscape", has been buried, then nothing can live there. Well, duh! But who is claiming that something would still be living there? Nobody that I know of, so when you pretend that "evilutionists" are claiming that, then you are lying. Nothing can live upon a deeply buried stratum except for bacteria, which apparently can live just about anywhere. So why would you want to lie and claim that we would hold such a position, unless the only way you can support your religious beliefs is through lying (I have seen much evidence to support this view!).Obviously, the organisms that had lived atop a layer that had once been atop the surface but is now buried deeply would not all be dead. Do you realize that? If you would wish to refute that obvious fact, then do please do so. But the generation of organisms that had lived at that time begat the next generation which lived atop the next layer of sediment. And the next generation lived atop the next layer of sediment. For generation after generation. Even after the next generation is completely different from the original generation. Where is the problem?You seem to believe that any sedimentation would wipe out all life. What do we observe happening on the bottoms of lakes that are building up sediment from the rivers and streams feeding them? What about the river deltas? Are they devoid of all life? The Mississippi River delta. Devoid of life? Show me!Glenn R. Morton was a young earth creationist. Armed with a BS in Physics, he launched into a career of petrolium exploration with no other geological training than the Flood Geology he had learned from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which had been co-founded by Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering, also known as "The Father of Flood Geology" because of his having co-authored the 1961 book, "The Genesis Flood" (much of which he had apparently stolen ... er, researched, from George McCready Price without giving him any credit). Morton hired several other "geologists" trained by the ICR. They all suffered crises of faith when confronted on a daily basis with rock-hard geological evidence that their ICR training had taught them did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to have any meaning. In the subsequent decade, Morton himself had been driven to the verge of atheism by "creation science", until he finally found a theological out that in the end saved his faith. Glenn Morton's story circa 1986 was the first time I realized how much and how severely "creation science" threatens the faith of its followers.Faith, you may want to read this article by Glenn R. Morton, River Channels Buried deep in the Geologic Column. Not only does he discuss a problem for you, buried river channels that could only have been formed on the surface, but also problems with depositation. You see, geologists are not the blithering idiots you believe them to be:

quote:

---

One thing the YEC leaders don�t tell their people is that post flood catastrophism can�t work because there is a speed limit on the speed of water on land. Water on earth simply doesn�t move faster than about 15-20 mph.

​

�The highest velocity known to have been recorded with a current meter by the U.S. Geological Survey was 22.4 feet per second in a rockbound section of the Potomac River at Chain Bridge near Washington, D.C., on May 14, 1932. Velocities of 30 feet per second (20 miles per hour) have been reported but were not measured by current meter. No greater values are known."
Luna B. Leopold, A View of the River, (London, England: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 33

​

This limits the amount of sediment which can be carried and limits how rapidly it can be carried.

​

The wavelength of the meanders is related to the width of the river, the depth of the river and the velocity. Scheidegger, Theoretical Geopmorphology, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1961), p. 188, gives the relationship between the wavelength and the flow as

​

L = 2b v/sqrt(gamma^2 * g* h � v^2)

​

Where L is the wavelength, b is the width of the river, v is the velocity of the water, gamma is a constant less than or equal to 1 (depending on the load of silt), and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

​

Meanders only occur when v < gamma * sqrt (g * h).

​

This limits the amount of sediment post-flood rivers can carry in post flood catastrophism. And if you limit that, then theories like those advocated by post-flood catastrophists, like David Tyler and Austin et al, will have major problems moving 75,000 feet of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico in a 2,000 year periods like those offered by David Tyler. Tyler has the flood ending when the Ordovician strata are deposited (see TheologyWeb Campus )

​

There are 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters of sediment in the northern half of the Gulf of Mexico forming a pile of sediment 75,000 feet thick. But the Mississippi River and other northern rim rivers can carry only about 175,000,000 cubic meters per year. This means that it would take 138 million years to deposit all the sediment we observe by using post flood rates of deposition. (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm)

​

To conclude, it is absolutely impossible to explain the existence of river channels in flood sediments and it is impossible to have channels and explain the post flood deposition many young-earth creationists advocate. Of course, none of these issues make it to the pages of AIG's Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Acts & Facts, or the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Any idea why these issues don't receive the attention they deserve?

---

Drawing the logical conclusion from a set of facts does not imply that anyone holds that conclusion and I did not imply that, far from it, in fact entirely the opposite.When a landscape gets buried the point is that anything still living would have no place to live because there is no longer a landscape to support life. Sediment alone isn't going to support anything that needs plants or smaller animals for food. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You still appear to hold the view that a landscape drops out of the sky in one piece 1,000 feet thick burying everything on it.Can't you understand that landscapes build millimetre by millimetre over time so life goes on while it's happening? There are stone age sites near where I live that are now underground. The sky did not drop 10 feet of earth on them - it built up over 5,000 years. Meanwhile life went on ON TOP of the building landscape.What is your problem???

quote:

---

Drawing the logical conclusion from a set of facts does not imply that anyone holds that conclusion and I did not imply that, far from it, in fact entirely the opposite.

---

But you aren't "drawing the logical conclusion". You are trying to find a problem in the conventional view and coming up with silly nonsense because you can't be bothered to understand it.

quote:

---

When a landscape gets buried the point is that anything still living would have no place to live because there is no longer a landscape to support life. Sediment alone isn't going to support anything that needs plants or smaller animals for food.

---

But this is just silly. River floodplains are fertile because of the sediment deposited on them. Sediment deposits do not automatically create barren wastelands as you would have us believe.

This one was funny. Like it happened at a place called Pompeii. Except for in other places in the world. And they will move around and populate the area again. Above the old population. Just like what happened at Pompeii. And we can dig out the remains of the original population of that area later!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Think.What buries a landscape is another landscape Faith.We seldom find living critters (we do but only a limited spectrum of living critters) inside buried landscapes.The process (and this was the enlightenment, the light bulb moment that showed the Biblical accounts and young earth we simply wrong and they died) is that the processes go on continuously, that critters evolve continuously and that there is no other possible way to explain what is seen unless all this happened over long, long periods of time.The fossils we find were at the time just critters that lived on the surface where they are found while it was just like the surface today.They died.They were not fossils when they died but rather just leaves and insects and dead dinosaurs.They got buried in soil, in sediment, in ash, in mud, in a bog, in forest litter, in a sand storm, in a stream, in a watering hole ... but buried.Time passes.Other stuff piled on top of the still soil with the sample buried in it.Eventually enough material is above the sample and its surrounding sediment to turn both the sample and the sediment from soil & dirt to rock.More time passes.The now lithified rock gets pushed up and as it gets pushed up the not yet lithified material that had gathered over it is weathered and eroded away.Eventually it is once again on the surface but now as lithified rock.Weathering and erosion now go more slowly than before the material was lithified.One day a boy living on the farm near the outcrop of rock sees what looks like bones and so runs and tells his dad.They call the police who come and look at the site and decide its not a murder in their jurisdiction and so call the museum three towns over.The museum sends some one out who declares "That's a fossil!"But for the whole time involved in this scenario there is still a landscape at the surface, still critters living and evolving at the surface.Edited by jar, : appalin grammur

A landscape? All I said was that if it gets buried there's no longer a landscape for its creatures to live on. I didn't suggest it gets buried, edge did, PaulK did, others did too I think. My first version of this is "if it becomes a rock" then there is no place for its creatures to live. Keeping n mind that a NEW landscape implies a NEW time period and a NEW set of creatures, which in itself challenges the Geo Timescale.But sediment is covering the landscape according to my opponents. Very deeply too. I asked a couple of times if they are thinking of another landscape forming but all I got back was "sediment" as the new surface, not another landscape. I've said nothing about how it happens. In fact I've been wondering if anyone is going to try to describe the process. But I just take it as a done deal as others have described it. I've been following edge's remarks as a matter of fact. He's the one -- though there have also been others -- who answered my query where the living things go when the landscape is buried, by saying they live on top of the sediment that buried the landscape. They said "sediment," not "new landscape." They also said that the sediment buried it very deep for it to lithify. You need to read ALL The posts if you are going to comment. But I'd have the same objection to that: millimeter by millimeter doesn't provide support for the creatures that are still living from the time of the buried landscape. Their life support is gone and now they have to wait for another one to develop millimeter by millimeter? Looks to me like there isn't any kind of scenario standard geology can come up with that would solve the problems I'm raising. The creatures need a landscape in order to thrive. Theirs has gone, becoming rock. Sediment can't support them. As I said from the beginning it looks to me like there is nothing to sustain life left and all of it would have to die out. But they keep saying, no, they are living on this very deep sediment. Not a new landscape which would have the other problem of introducing a new time period while the creatures of the former time period are the only living things, and now you are saying it happens so slowly it's clear that nothing could find sustenance in it anyway.Are you following this? So far the weird misreadings are quite remarkable. That's because there was a landscape there for them to live on. But remember we're talking about the strata, or at least I am, the strata which are said to be the remains of former landscapes in which creatures lived, particular creatures in a very particular landscape, the strata which are now slabs of rock formed from sediments. Not soil which has organic matter in it, but sediment which offers nothing to sustain life above maybe some insects, if those. So from stuff inside the rock a whole "depositional environment" or landscape is imagined to have existed on the site of the rock. Eventually the landscape got eroded and broken down to become that rock. Where did the living things go? I asked. Well, the landscape was covered deeply in sediments and they are living on top of that. Not a landscape, sediment.Ah well. That's very funny.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, I'm still trying to account for how a rock was once a landscape that became a rock. The rocks of the strata are made up in many cases of sediments that are not fertile, just sand or calcareous ooze and so on, that show no signs of ever having been fertile. Besides, if they were fertile why isn't anyone describing it as a new landscape rather than "sediments?" A fertile sediment isn't going to feed a dinosaur. If it's a seafloor ... well, give me the scenario. The only thing for sure in the scenario so far is that the landscape the creatures lived in has disappeared -- under deep sediment according to you all. Seems to me if that situation is all there is for any period of time, even briefly, there is nothing to sustain life and it would all have to die.Do you have a scenario that would work? So far I haven't seen one.