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.
™ Version 4.2
(1)