Summations Only

But it does deal with the de novo formation of a landscape, which seemed to be one of the things that was puzzling you.

quote:

---

Stating the uniformitarian party line using examples from the present does absolutely nothing to clarify the issues I've been trying to talk about, which are based on the facts as I find them in the strata and encountered in the discussion. Most of the posts here are irrelevant in exactly this sense.

---

in other words the entire problem with this discussion is that you will not accept that what you "see" is incorrect. And rather than deal with that you declare all posts pointing out your mistake "irrelevant" - typically without even bothering to directly say so - and ignore them. However, they clearly are relevant, so your tactic is neither honest nor productive.

quote:

---

If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

---

Sam Harris

Exactly what facts have you found in the strata? What you know is a close approximation to zero. You have never examined anything yourself and you have never studied an iota of geology from texts.

The formation of a landscape under ordinary situations is not what is "puzzling" me if that's the right word anyway. I'm trying to talk about the UNIQUE situation of forming a landscape ON TOP OF A HUGE FLAT SLAB OF ROCK (which as the geo column was forming would have been the uppermost surface in the column, or the latest rock/time period representative to have formed.) But the more difficult problem is how that new landscape eventually becomes a new rock in the strata, as it must because that's the evidence in the geo column itself: one rock on top of another rock, with an assumed landscape "in between," meaning the landscape that grew on top of the former rock/time period and eventually became a rock on top of that rock/time period.Getting from one landscape to another is NOT the problem. I'm trying to account for how a landscape forms on top of a rock and then becomes a rock on top of that rock. It's not the same as getting a terrestrial surface on top of a seafloor today. No it is not.I added a version of this to my response to Tangle:Your parents' landscape isn't going to become an enormous flat rock on the surface of a stack of enormous flat rocks as has to be the case in the geological scenario of the construction of the rock strata from landscapes. The strata situation is unique; you can't answer it with standard scenarios from today.I see a special problem with the strata that you all are trying to gloss over. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have a geology textbook, which is often open on my kitchen table; I read most of Dr. A's online textbook, I consult both from time to time.And I have collected lots of pictures of strata online (unfortunately having lost some to computer crashes).I also have three books specifically on the Grand Canyon, two creationist and one anti-creationist or anti-YEC. They all have great pictures, but the anti-YEC book has the best.abe: Seems to me this complaint that I have no geological knowledge is a false judgment based on my disagreeing with the status quo explanations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Now you have to explain why not because what I've explained is how sedimentary deposits are formed. It's a necessary first step to forming sedimentary rock. Correct No it's not. Yes we can.

And that willful ignorance on your part will only result in your continued ignorance.Try to actually learn a little.

That is IMO your biggest problem - without training to be able to read rocks you're throwing wild assumptions. Just like pathologists are able to read tissues and tell whether it's tumor or just a cyst, geologists are able to tell the origins and ages of rocks and what else - make predictions that the evidence either supports or not. There is no centuries-long conspiracy of doing academic work just to prove the Bible wrong. It is just silly to even think that.

quote:

---

The formation of a landscape under ordinary situations is not what is "puzzling" me if that's the right word anyway. I'm trying to talk about the UNIQUE situation of forming a landscape ON TOP OF A HUGE FLAT SLAB OF ROCK (which as the geo column was forming would have been the uppermost surface in the column, or the latest rock/time period representative to have formed

---

And when it is pointed out that that even forming a landscape directly on rock is a rare situation you ignore it, and you dismiss the explanations you do get on spurious grounds.

quote:

---

But the more difficult problem is how that new landscape eventually becomes a new rock in the strata, as it must because that's the evidence in the geo column itself: one rock on top of another rock, with an assumed landscape "in between," meaning the landscape that grew on top of the former rock/time period and eventually became a rock on top of that rock/time period.

---

That isn't a difficult problem at all. It eventually gets buried deeply enough to lithified, and it does.

quote:

---

Your parents' landscape isn't going to become an enormous flat rock on the surface of a stack of enormous flat rocks as has to be the case in the geological scenario of the construction of the rock strata from landscapes.

---

Terrestrial strata aren't generally enormous and why is the rest even an issue ?

quote:

---

The strata situation is unique; you can't answer it with standard scenarios from today.

---

You say that but you have given us no reason to think so.Setting artificial barriers on discussion where posts that do not accept your assumptions get automatically rejected is not a good way to get to the truth.

Well, that can happen occasionally, and why is it puzzling? What you need is (a) an erosional environment to expose the rock, followed by (b) a depositional environment that deposits the sediment. Why would this be puzzling? Burial under more sediment, followed by lithification. Why is that puzzling?

I am sorry that I said that then.

Then why do we find fossils and trace fossils of (say) Cambrian life? Now, please explain how nothing could live on this surface of a Cambrian sandstone. If the surface were 'unlivable', then what the heck are these critters doing there? Then you need to explain the picture above.Also, I'm not sure that livability is a condition for something being a landscape. Again, I think you are creating your own definitions here. Maybe that's why the communication in the thread is so bad. So, in this case, you are dealing with marine sediments. Do you understand why terrestrial sediments are different with regard to lateral continuity?I assure you that terrestrial sediments are also considered to be strata and they are a part of the geological record. I would say that the surface became unlivable when it was buried too deeply for creatures to live on it (personal communication, Captain Obvious). Yes, I would say that the dead animals did not escape being buried. Well, certainly, your thinking is muddled on this topic. Clearly animals lived on the sandy bottom of the Cambrian sea and left behind a wealth of tracks and carcass fossils as trilobites, for instance. Your reasoning fails at that point, but you keep on going.

In Message 620 I think Faith may have provided some significant clues to where the problem lies: This indicates three areas of misunderstanding:

1. Faith appears to believe that the topmost layer of the geological column, the layer we see all around us, can only be deposited after the previous layer has already turned to rock ("A HUGE FLAT SLAB OF ROCK...would have been the uppermost surface in the column" while "forming a landscape"). I know a couple people have already responded to this strange idea, but it should help to understand how Faith acquired it.
   ​
2. For whatever reason, Faith has ignored that the understanding of modern geology is that sedimentary deposits only turn to rock under great pressure after being deeply buried ("the more difficult problem is how that new landscape eventually becomes a new rock in the strata"). A couple people have already responded to this, too, but coupled with the first point it represents some fundamental mutual disconnect between the two sides.
   ​
3. The part about "an assumed landscape 'in between'" rock layers is another misunderstanding, though I can't guess its origin.

Faith invariably pronounces my interpretations wrong, but even if they are I still think reaching a mutual understanding on these points would help advance the discussion.To Faith I would say that at this point people are not looking for a concession that they are right and you are wrong. It's just that no one, least of all modern geology, has suggested any of the ideas you are objecting to. If you think the actual ideas of geology are wrong then discussing the evidence and reasoning that led you to that conclusion should be very helpful.Please, no replies to this message.

Well, there you go.It's not rock. Yes, after a long period of burial.The 'landscape' is nothing more than a bedding plane. It represents a period of discontinuity in deposition.I'm still not seeing your problem. First of all, it does not have to be a rock; and in a marine environment it almost certainly isn't. It's sediment. And that would be even later. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Certainly, if a marine sediment were uplifted, it would be exposed to erosion. And it would do so quite rapidly because it is sediment, not rock. Of course it doesn't and that's not what geology tells us. Why not?Maybe you should give us your definition of 'strata'. Maybe that would help. AFAIK, strata includes all layered rocks.