|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
but there's always that period of time when on that very site all you have is a rock 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. Sorry, for the strata to be the strata, the only evidence we have of these former "landscapes," each rock formation representing a time period has to become flat rock surface at some point whether it was buried or not, because that is what we see in the strata. The rock IS the former landscape, it didn't form BENEATH the landscape. The things in the rock are considered to have existed in situ exactly where the rock now sits. Stacks of imaginary landscapes sitting where there are only stacks of real rocks.
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. You don't have to hold a position that is the logical conclusion of a bunch of facts the consequences of which nobody has ever bothered to think about. You've got your facts compartmentalized. In the abstract you have lots of theory that doesn't account one whit for what is actually seen; when what is actually seen is made the focus eventually it should become clear that the theory is just castles in the air while the reality is something else entirely that makes the theory impossible.
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. Aargh. I never said they weren't composed of sediments; of course they are. Sigh. Groan. Sediments on which according to the theory stuff grew and animals roamed or sea life swam. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The rock IS the former landscape, it didn't form BENEATH the landscape. No, the rock isn't still the former landscape, the former landscape changed to become the rock. And it requires being beneath the surface. The former landscape gets turned into rock after it is buried under additional landscapes through erosion and sedimentation. The former landscapes get lithified because of the pressure on them from being buried under the landscapes on top of them that have been eroded and sedimented. I might have made up that last word "sedimented", but I hope you get the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The rock IS the former landscape, it didn't form BENEATH the landscape. It seems like you're finally beginning to get the point. Though of course it turned into rock beneath the landscape: when it formed it was loose sediment on the surface, but lithification takes place at depth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I was talking about the rest of the planet. When you don't have the time to fit history in anyway losing a whole lot more waiting for the land to recover is not really viable.
quote: It's the Flood geology that has bare flat sediments covering the entire world. It's a pretty rare occurrence in reality.
quote: Generally you do not. And as I keep having to point out the "previous" landscape won't be turning to rock because it isn't buried.
quote: The problem is that you confuse your imagination with reality. We don't have to keep "getting from a life-sustaining environment to a bare flat rock" because we don't say that happens. At least not in any way that causes problems for us. I've explained this often enough that I cannot see why you are being so obtuse.
quote: You have completely forgotten that it requires deep burial to turn the former landscape into rock, so there will be plenty of unlithified soil above it. So no, it IS rare for a new landscape to have to develop on bare rock for the reasons I said.
quote: It doesn't have to, so you are hopelessly wrong again.
quote: We do not see it in the strata. It is just something you made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Sorry, for the strata to be the strata, the only evidence we have of these former "landscapes," each rock formation representing a time period has to become flat rock surface at some point whether it was buried or not, because that is what we see in the strata.
This makes no sense. Please address one issue at a time.
The rock IS the former landscape, it didn't form BENEATH the landscape.
It had to. Lithification only occurs at the surface for volcanic rocks and evaporites.
The things in the rock are considered to have existed in situ exactly where the rock now sits.
And the problem is?
Stacks of imaginary landscapes sitting where there are only stacks of real rocks.
With features that tell us of past events, such as deposition and erosion, i.e., landscapes.
You don't have to hold a position that is the logical conclusion of a bunch of facts the consequences of which nobody has ever bothered to think about.
Really?? You don't think that anyone else ever thought about this? What hubris ...
You've got your facts compartmentalized. In the abstract you have lots of theory that doesn't account one whit for what is actually seen; when what is actually seen is made the focus eventually it should become clear that the theory is just castles in the air while the reality is something else entirely that makes the theory impossible.
You have yet to explain how it all happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. But then you have the problem of landscapes being preserved in the geological record. This would mean that your theory is refuted. Utterly. No because that's a geo misinterpretation of what is seen in the geo record, but they aren't landscapes, they are just a few clues that are misinterpreted as evidence of landscapes.
Because of the peculiar situation of the strata -- enormous slabs of rock BETWEEN WHICH these landscapes are postulated, 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. How does a rock protruding into another rock prove a landscape/seafloor existed there? A sea of wet sediment washed over the lower eroded rock and around the protruding quartzite? What exactly does this prove or disprove?
... and which are assigned great blocks of time. Well, I'd say that they are assigned to certain time periods. OK by me.
There wouldn't be any problems then either as long as the landscapes persisted (though of course I regard them as totally imaginary anyway), it's getting them down to rock that poses the problems, as it would today too if any of this had any reality at all. I think that would be called erosion. Yes it would and that would be a big problem for the in situ living things since it would take away their livable landscape and leave nothing but a rock. Not right away, they could go on living for a while but once it's all eroded flat, not any longer. And it has to be eroded flat at some point because that’s how it presents in the stack of strata.
But that means a persisting landscape, or a constantly regenerating landscape like the settlements on top of settlements in a tell. Still not seeing the problem. We have persistent landscapes existing today, at least in a human frame of reference. The problem is how you get from any landscape to the rock as it presents in the strata/ geo column. Landscape on landscape has to be explained somehow that allows for one rock layer or formation to be the only evidence of a particular time period as seen in the strata. One landscape is problematic enough but more than one raises questions about why they don’t all become rock in the strata, whether they are different from the one indicated in the rock, and if the living things in them are also different, and how all this could exist in the one time period without leaving any trace in the geo record, or if one of them is the landscape that will become the rock of the next time period and so on and so forth. You’ve got millions of years in there somewhere, too, so all kinds of things are possible (all the flora and fauna in the entire geological record could have come and gone a hundred times in that length of time) but the odd thing is that there is only ONE rock layer or formation to represent each time period of millions of years. There are no exceptions to this just looking at any model of the geo column/timescale, every few million years a new rock forms bearing testimony to one particular time period. I find that apparent regularity odd (of course I find everything about the geo column/timeline odd) but I suppose you’ll ask what’s the problem? as usual.
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. 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 ... Yes, sorry, I keep using landscape to stand for both land environments and seafloors.
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. Ummm, yes. That's what would happen if you lithified all of the sediments. Non sequitur I think. Maybe I wasn’t clear (wouldn’t be the first time in this strange discussion). The point about the stack of rocks is that is what it all keeps coming down to or back to: the layered rocks of the strata are THE clue to all these landscapes you are supposing to have existed. The fact that a landscape becomes a rock is what makes the continuous gradual change idea impossible. A rock is an unlivable landscape, but the imaginary landscape you get from clues in the rock always has to come back to that rock; it IS the rock as Cat Sci keeps saying.
I know this is an artificial problem, but that's because the geo theory is based on a false idea that you can have a stack of rocks signifying time periods that are in themselves the landscapes / depositional environments they represent. You syntax is odd. Rocks are not the time periods nor landscapes. That’s rather a nitpick in this context. Cat Sci keeps reminding me that in fact the landscape BECAME the rock, was where the rock now is, which says the same as the standard notion that what you find in the rock occurred on the site of the rock. And as long as a particular rock is consistently assigned to a particular time period it’s an academic point to say it’s not the time period. It might as well be.
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. OK I can try to remember to say I’m not talking about a particular sediment/rock but a level in the geo column/strata which does happen to be a rock layer or formation of whatever composition, but in this context I mean the particular rock identified with the particular time period whatever kind of rock it happens to be.
There is no other record of a particular time period than a particular formation of rocks at a certain level in the stack of rocks, ... But those rocks contain a huge amount of information about how they formed and when. Um. They contain information of some sort about something to do with the rock, OK, but how they formed? Not if they are interpreted to deny the Flood. And when? Of course I dispute this too.
... no record of any intervening landscapes .... Actually, we see landscapes in the form of erosional discontinuities. The consist of hills, streams, lakes and talus slopes, etc., etc. See? I doubt it. Infer from scanty clues I would accept. But I guess you do have some notion of intervening landscapes so I’ll give you that.
... or new forms of creatures between formations or rocks, ... We do see transitional forms if that's what you are complaining about. BETWEEN time periods?
... only the just-so appearance of particular collections millions of years apart in rock that IS the landscape/depositional environment it represents. But this is a different problem I guess. (There's no end to them really). I have not idea what you are saying here. I’m not sure either, so scratch that for now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix one of the quoted sections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Really?? You don't think that anyone else ever thought about this? Yes, I don't. But if I'm wrong, point me to the article or textbook where the questions I'm raising have been considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
No because that's a geo misinterpretation of what is seen in the geo record, but they aren't landscapes, they are just a few clues that are misinterpreted as evidence of landscapes.
And I suppose you would know this, how?
How does a rock protruding into another rock prove a landscape/seafloor existed there? A sea of wet sediment washed over the lower eroded rock and around the protruding quartzite? What exactly does this prove or disprove?
Well, to you, nothing. In general, it shows that there was topography, erosion and a shoreline.
Yes it would and that would be a big problem for the in situ living things since it would take away their livable landscape and leave nothing but a rock.
You realize that erosion is occurring all around you, do you not? In fact, it was Hutton who realized that soil is constantly creeping toward streams and eventually to the sea. And yet, there is still soil at the top of the hills. What's that all about?
Not right away, they could go on living for a while but once it's all eroded flat, not any longer. And it has to be eroded flat at some point because that’s how it presents in the stack of strata.
Please provide an example. I think you are talking about places where deposition is occurring. Have you not been reading my posts?
The problem is how you get from any landscape to the rock as it presents in the strata/ geo column.
Upon burial and lithification.
Landscape on landscape has to be explained somehow that allows for one rock layer or formation to be the only evidence of a particular time period as seen in the strata.
I don't see why this is an issue. There is always a landscape on the earth and there is always sedimentation. When an area is buried, it becomes part of the geological record. What happens after that is essentially a question of where sea level is.
One landscape is problematic enough but more than one raises questions about why they don’t all become rock in the strata, ...
Maybe they do. Maybe they are eroded away by later erosion.
... whether they are different from the one indicated in the rock, and if the living things in them are also different, and how all this could exist in the one time period without leaving any trace in the geo record, or if one of them is the landscape that will become the rock of the next time period and so on and so forth.
Maybe you could provide some examples. I really don't follow your logic posed in run-on sentences about multiple topics.
You’ve got millions of years in there somewhere, too, so all kinds of things are possible (all the flora and fauna in the entire geological record could have come and gone a hundred times in that length of time) but the odd thing is that there is only ONE rock layer or formation to represent each time period of millions of years.
Not really. Usually, there are multiple layers in a Period or an Era. Where ever do you get this notion? In fact, each formation often has what we call 'members' and 'beds' that can be quite different from each other.
There are no exceptions to this just looking at any model of the geo column/timescale, every few million years a new rock forms bearing testimony to one particular time period.
No. It may happen that only one formation occurs in a given time period, but usually it has a number of units within it that are different. Just look at some of the descriptions of the major formations.
I find that apparent regularity odd (of course I find everything about the geo column/timeline odd) but I suppose you’ll ask what’s the problem? as usual.
Oh... I know what the problem is. But it isn't what you think it is.
The point about the stack of rocks is that is what it all keeps coming down to or back to: the layered rocks of the strata are THE clue to all these landscapes you are supposing to have existed.
Yes, and you have nice flat-laying layers in many marine environments that make it look like a perfect slab of rock. This is not odd at all.
The fact that a landscape becomes a rock ...
Once again, the landscape is not a rock. It is a structural element within the rock. It is a surface representing a discontinuity in sedimentation. Do you not read my posts?
... is what makes the continuous gradual change idea impossible.
I'm not sure where you get this notion. Gradational contacts between different units are very common.
A rock is an unlivable landscape, ...
Possibly after lithification. But even then, I have my doubts.
... but the imaginary landscape you get from clues in the rock always has to come back to that rock; it IS the rock as Cat Sci keeps saying.
But it wasn't always rock. It used to be sediment which, at times, buried creatures that died in that location. This is not all that difficult, Faith.
That’s rather a nitpick in this context. Cat Sci keeps reminding me that in fact the landscape BECAME the rock, was where the rock now is, which says the same as the standard notion that what you find in the rock occurred on the site of the rock. And as long as a particular rock is consistently assigned to a particular time period it’s an academic point to say it’s not the time period. It might as well be.
In geology class, we are very careful to discriminate between the Triassic Period (time) versus the Triassic System (rock).
OK I can try to remember to say I’m not talking about a particular sediment/rock but a level in the geo column/strata which does happen to be a rock layer or formation of whatever composition, but in this context I mean the particular rock identified with the particular time period whatever kind of rock it happens to be.
Okay, then ... many kinds.
Um. They contain information of some sort about something to do with the rock, OK, but how they formed? Not if they were formed by the Flood. And when? Of course I dispute this too.
If you have a better interpretation, then you should publish. I would love to see your qualifications in doing so.
BETWEEN time periods?
And within. That is why we refer to various stages and 'upper' or 'late' Triassic, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Yes, I don't. But if I'm wrong, point me to the article or textbook where the questions I'm raising have been considered.
It boggles the mind that hundreds of years of geological work by thousands and thousands of professionals passed over something that an untrained, dogmatic YEC has realized. Are you serious?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, I don't. But if I'm wrong, point me to the article or textbook where the questions I'm raising have been considered. Any geology textbook will tell you how geology works. Mine, for example. If it does not specifically quote and address your gibberish, that's because life is too short: but it is sufficiently clear that anyone who read and understood it would recognize your gibberish as gibberish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: But if I'm wrong, point me to the article or textbook where the questions I'm raising have been considered. Often textbooks simply fail to address the really Edited by jar, : soften languageMy Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It boggles the mind that hundreds of years of geological work by thousands and thousands of professionals passed over something that an untrained, dogmatic YEC has realized. Are you serious? Well, I've never seen it discussed and it is an odd angle on things. Geologists look at the strata and see depositional environments, missing-time "unconformities" and millions of years; it seems to me that's a mental set that wouldn't think of asking the questions I'm asking. I could be wrong, but as I said I've never seen it discussed. And it IS a very odd angle on things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I never said they weren't composed of sediments; of course they are. If you know that landscapes are partly sediment, then why do you make the moronic claim that animals do not walk or live on sediment? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
it seems to me that's a mental set that wouldn't think of asking the questions I'm asking... That's because the questions you're asking were addressed and answered 200 years ago--there was no global flood during historic times. Why should modern geologists address questions that have been settled for 200 years? Questions for which the evidence in the intervening 200 years has only confirmed those initial answers? There was no global flood during historic times! Face it: you are posting from religious belief, not real-world evidence. Your beliefs have been disproved for over 200 years and:All the king's horses and all the king's menNor could all your belief... Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If you know that landscapes are partly sediment, then why do you make the moronic claim that animals do not walk or live on sediment? BARE sediment, BARE sediment, BARE sediment that stretches or miles. As so many of the strata do. NOI LANDSCAPES which provide sustenance, but BARE SEDIMENT. Good grief. Foilow the argument.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024