Summations Only

As you are describing it this all happens way too slowly for the creatures to be buried and fossilized. They'd have been first mangled by scavengers and then just rotted away to dust in such a time frame.One thing the Flood has over ALL the scenarios you can come up with is that it would have provided the PERFECT conditions for fossilization: rapid burial and compaction. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which is exactly what happens in the case of the vast majority of land creatures. Very few of them are fossilized. You act is though this lack of huge numbers of fossilized terrestial animals is not something actually observed. Something which was not observed. And beyond that, as has been repeatedly commented on, is that the Flood cannot explain any of the details of what was fossilized.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And guess what? That is exactly what happens most of the time Faith. That is one reason fossils are so rare. Except for the fact that the flood is refuted by all of the available evidence and cannot explain a single feature found in reality that might even be relevant.But the flood never happened and even if it did it cannot explain what is actually in existence.

Yes, that's why there are fossils left in those rocks. Well then, what happens to it? Of course not. That would be after it is preserved by burial. Why would there be living animals there? The only ones left would now be fossils. Well, let's say that it would be younger. In many cases, yes. How is that? You are describing how the timescale was devised. How would that challenge the timescale? Yes, just as the Tapeats Sandstone covers hills of Shinumo Quartzite.Is there a problem here? Possibly. It is covered by sediments. That would imply a new seafloor. I'm not sure what your problem is here The process has been explained for you many times. You have not told us what your problem is with it, other than to say 'it's impossible'. Why would it only be a mm thick? It's been accumulating for millenia. And they have it. There is always a seafloor. Why wouldn't there be? I think we read you plain and clear. The problem is that the words don't make sense. And yet you keep saying the same thing over and over. It's like you don't even read our posts.Look at it this way: the ocean floor is receiving sediments, so is there at time when there is no ocean floor? That seems to be what you are saying. Over and over.

quote:

---

Well, I'm still trying to account for how a rock was once a landscape that became a rock.

---

It doesn't look like it. Because all this "animals would have nowhere to live" nonsense is completely irrelevant to that. It seems that you're mainly trying to pretend that your silly argument about that is actually good. But if you're determined to waste time making a fool of yourself - which is what you are doing - that is your problem.

quote:

---

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.

---

You mean rocks that were formed of sediment deposited in deserts or on the seabed are made of the sediments you would find in a desert or in a seabed ? And the fossils we find in those strata would be the sort of life we'd find in a desert or in the sea.

quote:

---

Besides, if they were fertile why isn't anyone describing it as a new landscape rather than "sediments?"

---

I don't think that anyone would predict that you would make that specific mistake, so nobody would try to word around it.

quote:

---

A fertile sediment isn't going to feed a dinosaur.

---

The plants it helps grow, or the animals feeding on those plants will, though. Could you really not reason that far ?Like I keep saying, look at what is happening in the modern world instead of making things up. Or look at history. The annual flooding of the Nile wasn't a terrible disaster (except on rare occasions) - it was he foundation of Egypts power, thanks in part to the fertilising effect of the sediment left behind.

quote:

---

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.

---

The landscape that was there a long, long time ago you mean. Which really doesn't have much to do with the life living in the surface now.Instead of trying to mix up lithification and where things are living just try talking about one or the other. The two have so little to do with each other you that you are just confusing yourself.

You are using big words like lithified etc. Simpler yet is needed.

Exactly. But this suggests that nothing could have lived from that time period, and that's why the subject became where the living creatures that didn't get fossilized went on living, which is how the explanation of the deep sediment burying the landscape came up, which is where you all said they went on living. Then I argued that they couldn't live on bare sediments anyway. And so on and so forth. I said that because some here, Pressie in particular, was objecting to the idea of a buried landscape, thinks it's a very funny idea. But that's when he assumed it was my idea. So I'm saying I didn't suggest it, you did. He can explain why he's criticizing you. The question has to do with whether there were any alive at all after the landscape disappeared, got buried, whatever, and if so where did they go? Remember? On top of a lot of sediment that buried the landscape, says you all. The thing about a new landscape is that it implies a different rock in the strata which implies a new time period which implies new creatures, or some new creatures. So you say they evolved. But I still have the question what happened to the creatures that were still living from the previous landscape after so many of them were buried with it? There had to be a period when they were still living, but without their landscape and no new landscape, where would that have been? On top of the sediment you say. How do they survive on mere sediment?

At the point in the scenario being discussed there hasn't been time for plants to grow, the sediment has simply been piling up.

quote:

---

At the point in the scenario being discussed there hasn't been time for plants to grow, the sediment has simply been piling up.

---

I think it should be obvious that I was talking about a landscape that was already populated, not inventing a scenario for you. You might for instance note that I was responding to remarks made before that request.You do realise that by starting with an unpopulated landscape the who'd question of where the life went is moot ? So why ask for a scenario which invalidates your main point a.

No.Why in God's name would you say such a thing?The bodies of dead organisms get buried in sediment all the time, and this is not concomitant with the extinction of all life. For example, my grandmother has been buried, but I am still alive.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

When rivers flood, they leave sediment on the banks and we see animal tracks in that sediment. The animals are living off food in the water and food on the non-flooded land, and they're crossing the sediment to get to the food.Where's the mystery?

Except once again reality shows us exactly what happens when there is an unpopulated landscape and that is life from populated landscapes migrates in. Whether it is the wasteland created after a massive flood or volcanic eruption's lava or ash flow or new land rising out of the sea following uplifting or sea level falls or land exposed by a retreating glacier or the bed of a river that has changed its channel we see life moving in very quickly. There are seeds and spores and fungus amungus that are carried in by the winds, animals that move in to avoid being eaten or to find new nesting areas or to eat the plants and fungus amungus that rapidly grows in the unpopulated areas.

No idea what you are talking about. I've been keeping the time factor in mind all along, it's what makes or breaks the standard geo scenario. If there's any period of time in that scenario when nothing could live then the scenario is kaput. If you skip from sedimentation to landscape of course you skip over such periods, but they are what need accounting for. When one landscape is gone, buried, no longer livable, any creature still living needs a place to live. though really nothing could be living at that point anyway). If all that's happening is the build-up of sediment to a great depth burying their landscape their choice is to keep living on sediment or die. Nothing can live on mere sediment so they die. And if they die that kind of kills the Geo Timescale which has creatures living on or creatures evolving from creatures.Give it another try. Maybe you can still come up with a scenario that allows the Geo Timescale to be right. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Most dinosaur skeletons are incomplete. Here is an interview with Sue Hendrickson who found the T Rex named Sue after her. http://www.scholastic.com/browse/subarticle.jsp?id=21 Several species of dinosaur are known from only a few bones that significantly differ from all other dinosaur bones. New 'massive' dinosaur skeleton discovered Argentinosaurus - Wikipedia
So Old Earth geology would predict rare fossilization of dinosaurs of mostly partial skeletons due to exposure of at least part of any carcass.What is the prediction of YEC? Whole skeletons of dinosaurs buried and fossilized without decay or scavenging? Edited by 14174dm, : No reason given.

Faith proposes that the pre-Flood landscape was massively eroded by heavy rainfall, and then had - literal - tons of sediment dumped on it. Nevertheless those departing the ark found an adequately livable landscape a matter of months after the flood subsided.And yet she also proposes that much smaller scale events must devastate the land and render it uninhabitable. Even though events of that sort occur today - and don't.Even if Faith has an explanation for the first, the second is still obviously daft. But she keeps on and on at it.