Summations Only

Very amusing but meaningless and that's why I mocked Slartibartfast.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But comes a time when the landscape is completely buried -- and very deep according to some here. You now have no place else to go, or your great great great great grandchildren don't.

I shall try again to explain why your point makes no sense.

quote:

---

still can't see any way you could have a large flat expanse of sediment that becomes rock, that was once a particular landscape that becomes the rock, which gets buried under a LOT of sediment,..

---

Firstly you are confusing the issue by linking the eventual deep burial of the sediment with the issue of where the creatures used to live. AGAIN.As we keep pointing out the burial is slow and life just goes on living on the current surface, just as it does todaY. So, the burial is not a problem and we know that it is not a problem.

quote:

---

...in which the creatures that supposedly lived in that particular time period/ landscape got buried with the rock -- because that's the only landscape said to exist at that time so all the creatures would have had to die and not pass on their genes to the next layer of landscape/sediment/rock/landscape/time period.

---

This is just weird. Why do the creatures have to die before leaving descendants ? It is not as if all the fossils we find are juveniles. So all you have there is an unlikely assertion,

quote:

---

You imagine other places they could live, but their fossils aren't found in other places, only in this particular rock associated with this particular time period.

---

Really ? I've yet to see any reason to believe that, especially as we are mainly talking about terrestrial areas which generally have limited extents - and many terrestrial areas won't be experiencing net deposition so there will be areas which don't leave much record.

quote:

---

This could maybe be explained for a particular time period or two or three (though I'm not sure how), but not for every time period up the whole geo column at that location. The answers I've been getting seem mostly just to assume there's no problem and my description is crazy,

---

Well it is really simple. The animals keep on living in the same area unless and until something happens to change that. Sometimes they will move elsewhere, sometimes the local population will die out, sometimes even large numbers of species will go extinct. But there is never any reason to believe that everything on the planet died.There is no problem with sedimentation today, so we don't need to assume that there were problems in the past.As for the rest, so far as I can tell that's just your mistaken impression. You haven't given one concrete example. Which is really odd, because without concrete examples you don't have any real evidence.

I have a policy of not reading anything that starts out with "that is a flat out lie."

And what makes her an australopithecine rather than a homo sapiens? I can keep asking if you want to keep playing this game.

Actually, we consider evidence.Or are you talking about the YEC position? You are kidding ... are you not? Well, sure, it's ad nauseum.If you picked it up the first time it we wouldn't have to repeat it so often. Have you applied this logic to YECism? Please explain. What 'flesh' are you talking about? Well, then disprove them. It should be easy for you. Well, then you have a problem.Usually, it is a sign of a robust theory that it cannot be disproven.What is it that makes a 'good' explanation?On these recent threads, it has been amply shown that YEC does not have an explanation.Or are you going to tell us how the fossil record is so ordered?I await your answer on the other thread.Maybe you could sort out this 'landscape issue' as well. Please tell us where the extinct critters went, if not into the sediments that engulfed them. Maybe you could explain to us how terrestrial deposits formed continental-scale strata (or at least tell us where they are).

It was not I who brought up the absolute falsehoods and lies published by those claiming to be creation scientist so I do not see how I could be said to be the person changing the subject.So have you realized yet that your topic "The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock" is not simply wrong but silly and unsupportable?

Well, no Faith, you simply keep asserting that which is quite different than trying to show.

Yes they do. They can walk about on the sediment that buried it, which will then be the landscape.

A cranial capacity of 375 to 500cc. Massive ape-like jaws. A bell-shaped rib-cage. A stature under 4 ft tall.Practically the only thing that makes her an ape-man at all, and not just an ape, is that she was bipedal.But this really doesn't matter. For the purposes of this discussion, if you want to think of australopithecines as a subgroup of H. sapiens, you may (you'd be wrong, but you may), so long as you concede that it is a recognizable subgroup. In which case, the point still stands: out of a sample size of 200+, Lucy is the most complete, which tells us something about how well or badly fossil organisms tend to have been preserved. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic graphic.

What is it that makes Lucy not an ape?How do you know all those bones are hers? Or belong to this genus you say she belongs to? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic graphic.

They going to eat the sediment? Sleep on the sediment?

Technically you and I are apes too as is Lucy. But that is a nit.
Her hips allow her to stand upright (as well as other leg parts). Only our lineage has that. Hers are not as advanced as the genus homo is though. They were found together. Why would you think otherwise? Also they fit. She has the characteristics allocated to the genus. In fact, she might be the type specimen (the one used as the defining example) but I am not sure. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic graphic.

Some, like Dr. A., you have accused of being abusive. What do you expect when this has been explained to you over and over and over?

No. If there was no sediment, would they be eating dirt?Your question is beyond ridiculous, or would be if you understood the process being described to you at least a dozen times by now. I understand that you reject it yourself, but that is no excuse for not recognizing that you have already been given an answer to your question.Imagine the sediment forming just a thin layer on the soil and actually becoming soil by mixing with moisture minerals and organic material from the layer below and from new sources external to the layer of sediment. Now imagine this process continuing over time. In that case, the top layer would be essentially a soil layer that grows over time, that top layer always being just as capable of supporting life.The lower layers then become rock through processes already described. If animals are sleeping on the ground, then yes.What is the difference between sleeping on the ground and sleeping on a small layer of sediment on the ground? Nothing. In either case, the animals just get dirty.