Summations Only

A couple of problems with that very process.1) When it's buried there is no more "livable landscape" as I've been trying to say, the landscape --with its varied plants, trees, creatures -- in which the creatures lived is simply not there, it's covered with sediment.And 2) While the burial may bring about lithification what we're talking about is a rock in the strata as we see it today, so after it's lithified the sediment it's buried in has to disappear leaving just the rock as we now see it. That's not impossible I suppose but expecting it to happen for many rocks in the strata would be a bit much from a probability point of view.,If, on the other hand, the sediment burying it also becomes rock then presumably it would be the rock we see today above the rock in question in the strata. If that upper rock is the next time period up, then what that would mean is that this upper rock would have to be the remains of ANOTHER landscape and now things are getting physically impossible. Whichever way I take this scenario sometime or other some part of it is just physically impossible. The landscapes represent a particular rock that represents a particular time period. The rocks have to end up looking like the strata as we see it today. I know you simply cannot imagine a problem here but if you tried to think it through step by step I think you'd have to, as I do.ABE: I guess I need to take more time trying to vconstruct the sequence here. Landscape is getting buried by sediments, habitat for many cratures going away. But we can assume that another landscape is growng up on top of it and they find a home there. This may take what, a few thousand years? More? Is this the same kind of landscape or ar3e things evolving already? Maybe we need a whole series of landscapes getting buried and new ones growing up? Maybe this goes on for a few million years and we are now in the next time period as assigned to the rocks. Now we've got the original time period/rock deeply buried with lots and lots of stuff on top of it. But that rock is one in a stack of rocks. Are all the time periods growing here at once? What about all that extra sediment to bury the landscape and turn it into rock? Doesn't that have to disappear so that what is actually seen in the strata is all that we see?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Remember that guy called Steno; when you tried to use his Second Law?Well he actually proposed four laws and the very first one is the Law (or principle which is closer to what it really is) of Superposition. It pretty much says that at the time a lower layer is being deposited an upper layer does not yet exist.

I believe both upper and lower layers were already there when the unconformity occurred.

It is pretty much irrelevant what you believe, you need to provide the model, mechanism, process, procedure. thingamabob that would explain how that bees possible.

That's been done elsewhere.Interesting how you don't acknowledge that I answered your Steno accusation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I missed your post please provide a link to the particular message and I will gladly acknowledge it.But so far in over a decade that has never yet happened.

Or maybe it could have looked like the picture that I showed you previously ... the one that shows a rock surface is not straight and level according to you. So, to you original horizontality is inviolable, but superposition is erroneous. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Of course not, it's been buried. Well then, I wonder what those fossil forests and swamps and leaves came from ...This is getting tedious, Faith.Please tell us that you disagree just for fun. You are making no sense at all. Well, we can't see at the time it formed. Sure, it's called erosion. Well, good. Most rocks are not exposed at the earth's surface. Just as you say.

Obfuscating pseudoplausible nonsense.
Time for a break.

quote:

---

My humble request has been answered with a big zero so far.

---

I understand that you are not getting the answers that you want but you are certainly getting answers.

quote:

---

I get the idea that there is only rock or sediment at some times by simply thinking through the logic of getting from a landscape to a rock AS SEEN IN THE GEO COLUMN as I've been using that term , and much of my argument is the attempt to describe that process. For the strata to end up as it is certain things have to happen. There's always a point n the process where the landscape associated with that time period no longer exists and there is only sediment or rock.

---

But nothing in the process requires the future rock to remain at the surface. And in fact as we have pointed out - and you should already know - lithification typically requires deep burial. So, we have good reasons to think that the surface will usually not be rock, and you have yet to give us any reason to think otherwise. Likewise you have given us no reason to think that bare sediment is the only alternative.If your claims are the product of rational thought you should be able to present the reasoning and answer the objections. I can see no good reason why you have not already done so.

quote:

---

just want a term for the process of getting from the landscape for a particular time period Message 333 to the rock that represents it in the geological column. It seems simple to me..

---

In context you were asking for a term for: so I have to interpret your statement as referring to a way of identifying those strata that you wish to single out.So, from that perspective, we don't go from the landscape to the rock. We go from the rock to the landscape. The landscape is reconstructed from the evidence in the rocks. The landscapes depicted in your earlier posts are just "typical" examples.

quote:

---

But I said the exact opposite of what you think I said. I clearly said NOT the type of rock. and bolded it in the quote.

---

In that case what could you mean by I really don't think you can identify strata from the same period - even the smaller subdivisions - as being automatically the "same" in any sense other than having been deposited at "about the same time" - which could mean millions of years apart.I'm sorry that I misunderstood but I cannot think of any other sensible reading of that sentence.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Who said anything about it having to remain at the surface? What it has to do is fit into the stack at the point where we see it now, wherever it is exposed, on top of the right rock, beneath the right rock. Good grief how much clearer can I be that that's what I'm talking about? IT HAS TO BE WHAT WE SEE IN THE STRATA. If the rock for this particular time period is sandstone and the next time period up is limestone right on top of the sandstone then there can't be something in between, there has to be sandstone with limestone on top of it. Then read what I wrote to edge. Perhaps I made it clearer there.

quote:

---

Who said anything about it having to remain at the surface?

---

You did. Remember we are talking about your idea that there would be no livable environment anywhere in the world - only rock or bare sediment. Deeply buried rock is obviously irrelevant to that.

quote:

---

Good grief how much clearer can I be that that's what I'm talking about?

---

In fact it is perfectly clear that you were not. In fact it is perfectly clear that you were ignoring it.

quote:

---

IT HAS TO BE WHAT WE SEE IN THE STRATA. If the rock for this particular time period is sandstone and the next time period up is limestone right on top of the sandstone then there can't be something in between, there has to be sandstone with limestone on top of it.

---

You are making no sense. Leaving aside the possibility of erosion removing intervening deposits that only means that the material deposited was mostly sand followed by material that was mostly carbonate.

quote:

---

Then read what I wrote to edge. Perhaps I made it clearer there.

---

No, that didn't make sense either. Quite frankly you seem to be very confused on the matter and to have some very odd ideas about what is and is not physically possible.

This is why no-one says that most creatures lived on a flat rock covering thousands of square miles. Lithification.

But what there had to be was sand with calcareous ooze on top of it.

To answer your attempt to deal with the most likely scenario

quote:

---

If, on the other hand, the sediment burying it also becomes rock then presumably it would be the rock we see today above the rock in question in the strata.

---

Some of it likely did.

quote:

---

If that upper rock is the next time period up, then what that would mean is that this upper rock would have to be the remains of ANOTHER landscape and now things are getting physically impossible

---

Physically impossible ? You really aren't making any sense here.

quote:

---

The landscapes represent a particular rock that represents a particular time period

---

More accurately the landscapes consist of material deposited at a particular time and were eventually buried and lithified.

quote:

---

The rocks have to end up looking like the strata as we see it today.

---

Since the landscapes are reconstructed from the evidence of the rocks that should not be at all problematic.

quote:

---

I know you simply cannot imagine a problem here but if you tried to think it through step by step I think you'd have to, as I do.

---

The fact that you cannot point to any genuine problem rather suggests that you can't find one either. Simply asserting that there is a physical impossibility in there for no apparent reason really doesn't count.

quote:

---

ABE: I guess I need to take more time trying to vconstruct the sequence here. Landscape is getting buried by sediments, habitat for many cratures going away

---

That would depending on how the deposition was changing the landscape. We know that environments can remain largely stable over long periods of time even with deposition (e.g. river courses gradually change but the river itself usually stays)

quote:

---

But we can assume that another landscape is growng up on top of it and they find a home there. This may take what, a few thousand years? More? Is this the same kind of landscape or ar3e things evolving already?

---

You don't really seem to have a firm grasp of the subject at all. You have been advised many times to consider what is going on in the modern world and has happened in known history but it seems that you are ignoring that advice.Again, it all depends on what is happening (and I will add that evolution is continuous, and not necessarily linked to changes in the local environment)

quote:

---

Now we've got the original time period/rock deeply buried with lots and lots of stuff on top of it. But that rock is one in a stack of rocks. Are all the time periods growing here at once?

---

This seems to be rambling unconnected to reality. What does it mean to say that "all the time periods are growing here at once" ? Obviously material is only deposited when it is deposited, and the time period assigned to it is the time when it was deposited. So, if "growing" does not refer to the deposition of additional material (and it cannot) what does it mean ?

quote:

---

What about all that extra sediment to bury the landscape and turn it into rock? Doesn't that have to disappear so that what is actually seen in the strata is all that we see?

---

Either it becomes higher strata or it is eroded away (or relatively recent material will remain as soil)