Summations Only

quote:

---

YOU ARE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT. The problem for the standard theory is NOT recovery, the problem is getting from a landscape to a rock to a landscape to a rock to account for all the time periods.

---

You are the one who brought up the question of where creatures would live. You claimed that they could not "live on sediment". You don't get to ignore that just because it is a far worse problem for your views. So no, I am not missing the point. - I am making a point and I do not appreciate you attempting to shout it down,And really it is rather rare to go from rock to landscape - only in areas buried in lava or eroded down to bedrock would count. And in both cases there does not seem to be a problem. We have the time for weathering to break down the surface rock or for sediment to be deposited, for the plants to colonise the area, for life to gradually return.Landscape to rock is even less of a problem. Deep burial provides the pressure needed to turn soil into rock.

quote:

---

The Flood does not have that problem. The earth is destroyed and a new landscape grows up on top of the whole stack of sediment

---

So obviously the whole burial issue was a complete red herring, just as I said. If it is a problem at all it is a far worse problem for you - and you say that it is not.

quote:

---

Because of the peculiar situation of the strata -- enormous slabs of rock BETWEEN WHICH these landscapes are postulated, and which are assigned great blocks of time

---

You really ought to understand better than now. Terrestrial deposits represent a slowly changing landscape, which builds up over long periods of time - your millions of years. The divide between different formations may be a little special - but only really in the case where deposition halted for a while. All this is simply things we see today, which do not pose a problem today and if you want to say that they pose a problem in the past you need more than vague and mistaken ideas about how future strata are laid down.

quote:

---

Nothing lives on the surface of sediments, a landscape is necessary, and you are imagining such a landscape without accounting for it or facing the problems I keep raising about it.

---

Funny how you insisted that was not a problem when we were talking about the Flood even though it would obviously be a far bigger problem if it is a problem at all.But of course things do live "on top of sediments" how often do I need to point to river floodplains before you get the point ?

quote:

---

You want to think in terms of continuous gradual change, landscapes changing, living things changing and adapting, but you are having to impose that idea on the actual facts: the STACK OF ROCKS

---

Rocks which contain the evidence to show that we are correct.So your problems are purely imaginary.

But Faith we know how what you call a landscape turns to rock and how there are 'landscapes' on top of rocks. What on earth is your problem? You are missing something absolutely fundamental. God knows how and why. What you are saying about geology is totally screwed up, you simply don't understand the process.Btw, I can see how a 'landscape' is being laid down in my own back yard. 12 years ago, I laid a path level with the lawn so I could mow over it. Last week I had to relay it because the lawn was over an inch higher. The root mass and earthworm work combined with sediment flowing down the hill is rising the land.This is why archaelogical works are called digs. You have to dig down through accumulated sediment to find what you call the landscapes below. At every point in time there was a landscape with stuff living on top of it. Just as I lived on top of my lawn 12 years ago, but now I'm living on top of it an inch higher. It's a gradual process.Time is what you're missing. An inch in ten years is 83 feet in ten thousand. In some places that will be faster and in others there will be an erosion. If nothing changes, in 1 million years my lawn will be 8,333 feet under the 'landscape'. At each point in time something will be living on it.Eventually the pressure on the old 'landscape' will begin the lithification process and form rock. That's all there is to it."Essentially, lithification is a process of porosity destruction through compaction and cementation."

I actually live on a landscape of sediments. A landscape formed by sediments. Rivers and plains and deltas and lakes. A huge basin. With mountains and hills and flat areas formed during the Vaalian and Mokolian and Namibian and Cambrian and Permian. And now.I'm really not too sure why Faith thinks I can't live on sediments. Sand and soil, hey. I'm quite happy living on sediments. So are the mielies I'm growing.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Uh, NO Faith, that is simply not a problem as has been explained to you many, many, many times. Again, sorry Faith but reality says that too is simply wrong and nothing but dogma and proselytizing. All of the evidence (and it is massive and conclusive) shows there was no pre-flood vitality just as there was no Biblical Flood.But as has also been pointed out to you that is irrelevant, as irrelevant as the mythological floods to this topic. Again Faith, you are simply once again misrepresenting what everyone has explained to you in as simple a fashion as possible. No one is postulating that there are landscapes between two slabs of rock except you. Again, reality simply shows you are once again wrong. The conventional theories adequately explain all of the geological and biological samples that have been found.What you might have meant to say is "Faith will not accept those answers" and if so, we understand and it is your right to be willfully ignorant and continuously wrong. And yet once again reality insists on intruding into Faith's fantasy. The Rio Grande Valley is a vast sediment plain formed by shallow seas and rising land with all the meandering rivers that resulted. Folks live on that sediment. Plants live on that sediment. There is a good chance the oranges you eat grew on that sediment. Damn. Reality intrudes again. If we look at what is in those rocks and at the composition of those rocks we find that they are the product of landscapes and landscapes that can be dated to particular distant past times.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

You can "explain" what is nothing but your own misinterpretation forever and it will never be anything but your own misinterpretation, so you might as well stop that particular drumbeat.

Once again, reality intrudes into Faith's fantasy.What I "explain" is really the same stuff everyone else is trying to "explain" to you and unfortunately for your fantasy, the explanation really does explain what is seen in reality.What you need to do is come up with an alternative explanation that also explains what is seen. The Biblical Flood simply fails miserably at explaining anything found in reality so that is a non-starter, DOA line of inquiry.

Then it is you who are muddying the discussion. And confusing yourself so terminally that you yourself cannot understand the most simple and obvious facts.Within the strata we can indeed identify the old surfaces where the "landscape used to be at that time. And traces of that old "landscape" can still be seen in terms of root systems, burrows, fossils, etc. But while that old surface was being buried, the "landscape" remained on the then-current surface and continued to do its thing.You keep claiming that the "landscape" stopped to exist and had to wait for a new one to come into existence to replace it. That stupid idea is dead wrong. As you have been informed over and over and over and over again.What is your problem? Outside of your obviously false theology requiring you to be incapable of understanding the simplest and most obvious facts.

And the problem is? But then you have the problem of landscapes being preserved in the geological record.This would mean that your theory is refuted. Utterly. I would say that they are documented. For instance, it does not explain the existence of Shinumo Quartzite 'monadnocks' in the Tapeats sea. These are documented. Well, I'd say that they are assigned to certain time periods. I think that would be called erosion. Still not seeing the problem. We have persistent landscapes existing today, at least in a human frame of reference. Well, you should talk to the trilobites who left footprints in Cambrian sediments about that. They never had a landscape to live on; perhaps a seafloor ... Ummm, yes. That's what would happen if you lithified all of the sediments. You syntax is odd. Rocks are not the time periods nor landscapes. Erosion or non-deposition of rocks causes landscapes and sea floors. Rocks form a system which occurs during a time period, and they change character depending on the extant depositional environment. But those rocks contain a huge amount of information about how they formed and when. Actually, we see landscapes in the form of erosional discontinuities. The consist of hills, streams, lakes and talus slopes, etc., etc. We do see transitional forms if that's what you are complaining about. I have not idea what you are saying here.

But usually this doesn't happen: instead we get from a landscape to a landscape to a landscape, or from a landscape to a seascape to a landscape.But sometimes with the right sequence of tectonic events you would get a situation where something which was in an erosional environment and had been eroded down to rock would get turned into a depositional environment and get gradually covered over by sediment. Of course, the rock and the sediment would both constitute a landscape, "rock" and "landscape" aren't antonyms.Now, what do you see as the "problem" here?

No, the landscapes are not between the slabs of rock.The landscapes, themselves, have become the slabs of rock.The landscapes get eroded and lithified and turn into slabs of rock.They do not occur between slabs of rock.

Correct. A landscape (broader sense) would be a surface that is either receiving sediments or being eroded (or could be in-between, i.e. 'non-depositional').A 'landscape' is always present ... sometimes as a mountain range, sometimes a deep-sea floor. etc.The landscape can only be frozen by burial, and eventually can be preserved in the rock record. It may exist for a long time if erosion is slow, or it may disappear with rapid erosion such as by mountain glaciers.I don't know if this helps, but I thought I'd toss in my two cents.

The ark landed on a mountain, not on a flatland of bare sediments. There seem to have been a few trees there too, not buried in sediment probably because they were above that zone although HBD assumes the mountain would have been buried too. Well, the strata did not cover everything on the planet so there's no reason to assume he's right.And you'd think I'd know if animal life could live on bare flat sediments or not, it's a very simple point that everybody should understand, but of course y'all prefer to complicate it. Do I have to SAY "bare" sediments? Really? Does anything live on the Great Salt Lake? Granted it's salt and not sand or clay but neither bare flat sand nor clay can support life either. (In fact maybe Salt Lake does better at that since it has some seasonal fish and is famous for its brine shrimp. But you won't find deer munching leaves out there.)And it shouldn't have been too long after the Flood that plants were growing everywhere, keeping in mind that there would still be a great deal of the pre-Flood vitality that would produce more plants faster and better than ours today for the first hundred years or so, and animals could spread out across the planet.Back to Geo Theory: Right after deposition the thing is what we've got is bare flat sediment on top of a rock the previous landscape turned into. We could assume life now exiled from that former landscape kept living on the sediments except for that fact . And for your scenario we can't assume any extra vitality to speed up plant growth. Then too, the sediments that piled on top of the landscape would have had to be eroded away of course, after the rock was formed, leaving a flattish surface, because that's what we've got in the strata, but nothing is impossible for the just-so requirements of the Geological Timescale. But of course that erosion would also cause problems for the animal life. The best that could occur for the creatures is that the landscape wasn't COMPLETELY covered, but as y'all know, there is no way to get a rock out of it if it wasn't. Whichever version of the events you prefer there's always some point where the poor Animalia are left without a supportive environment long enough to go extinct. If you didn't have to end up with a flat slab of rock they'd stand a chance, but the flat slab of rock IS what it all has to end up with. The landscape that would support them is IN that rock, it all exists in situ says y'all. And the poor things can't even move to the mountains because for one thing there are very few of those as the sediments spread far and wide, and for another they'd probably get fossilized out of their proper order that way. They could maybe run onto another sediment where their own runs out, where there may still be growing things, but that sediment would probably have become unlivable rock by then, scoured by erosion to flatness to make way for the next time period, and if it was still soft enough to get buried in they'd die in a time period before they were supposed to have existed according to the geo timesvcale.While my imagination may not always be up to the task of constructing what must have happened, the idea of some continually livable world is certainly false when you have to keep getting from a life-sustaining environment to a bare flat rock in a stack of bare flat rocks. But this must happen because of the strata which tell you they represent landscapes. Each layer or formation of rock has been a landscape and each has a rock or formation on top of it that has been a landscape. The upper landscape would have had to develop on top of the lower expanse of rock while it was exposed. If it's rare the whole geo system falls apart. But you can't have the rock breaking down because it has to end up in the stack of strata as a flat slab of rock. If you have sediment being deposited it either has to become the next landscape that becomes the next rock of the next time period, or it has to be eroded away to end up as that flat slab of rock. Or both. I guess given the supposed millions of years there would be quite a bit of time for life to go on living whenever there is a landscape for them to live in, but there's always that period of time when on that very site all you have is a rock. This is what is seen in the strata, that's where it has to end up, as the flat [mostly] featureless rock depicted in the cartoon of my OP.The Flood scenario never ends up with a flat rock. The series of layers kills everything but it comes to an end, there is a final sedimentary surface on which life can regenerate without anticipating another destructive cycle. There's a last slab of rock and that is that. Life then resumes and continues.But at each time period in the geo scenario there has to come a point where there is nothing but sediment/rock on the very site where there had been a landscape with life flourishing in it. Has to end there, with the flat featureless horizon in my OP cartoon, because that's what we see in the strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

At least three posts out of the last ten have provided descriptions indicating that this does not happen in between landscapes, because the process of becoming rock occurs beneath the landscape. Maybe some exceptions for cooled magma. I am having a difficult time understanding how a reasonably intelligent person has not shifted to the position of attacking what is actually being claimed instead of attacking a position that nobody here holds.Also, despite your indication to the contrary, landscapes are partially composed of sediments. It is not clear to me what you think they are composed of.

There you go again posting absolute nonsense. There is absolute conclusive evidence that there is no such thing as Pre-Flood Vitality. There is also absolute positive evidence that plants, soil and animals from tens of thousands of years before the date of any Biblical flood were very much like those after such a date.Stop claiming stuff that exists only in your imagination. Of course things live on the great Salt Lake.

quote:

---

Although it has been called "America's Dead Sea", the lake provides habitat for millions of native birds, brine shrimp, shorebirds, and waterfowl, including the largest staging population of Wilson's phalarope in the world.

---

Once again reality intrudes into Faith's fantasy. As pointed out in Message 380 every geological column has a surface at the top. The is and has never been the scenario of your imagination.

You've been shown that it's your notion that's false. There are livable environments right beside those unlivable ones. You are the only one who is imagining that the whole world was unlivable at the same time.