Summations Only

I don't know what you mean here. Who has forgotten that the sediments turn to rock and become part of the geological record? And the problem is?Though I might quibble over what that 'great depth' is. Here is where you leave the rails completely. All layered sedimentary rocks are strata. Are you trying to say that only the rocks are left?If so, what's the big deal? Isn't all of that fairly obvious? What next time period? They are simply younger. What do you mean by a 'time period'? Why not just say that the next layer will be a younger rock? Again, what do you mean by 'the geo column'? Whatever is there is there. The topmost layer of sediments or rocks is usually gone. Remember my description of terrestrial systems? They are in a state of long-term erosion. What is impossible for me is to understand your reasoning.Everything you say is fully accounted for by mainstream geology.But, you reject old ages, so you cannot even fathom how geological processes work. The same thing that happens now. They move.Of course the dead ones don't. If they are lucky they become fossils in someone's collection. Sure, marine sediments look like that even when they are still sediments.

Yes, there is always a landscape as long at there is land.Regardless, if it is preserved in the record it is a surface (erosional, if on land) and not a rock per se. In general terms, I would call it a primary structural element. It would be paleotopography.

I've been puzzling about this sentence.What is it saying? Very few things are 'exactly' alike in the world of stratigraphy.

Sorry, but I am forced to differ.Anyone who thinks that geology began and ended with a mythical flood really has a minimal understanding of geology.

The problem is that it also seems to refer to a marine ecosystem. I'm just trying to get a handle on what it means at different times.

Those illustrations were not intended to describe geology. They were intended to show the change of living communities through time. I have understood this since elementary school. In each period, there were mountains and deserts and oceans and volcanoes. Just like we have today. Actually, they are for the extant environment where animals lived.Only if you are talking about the sediments, then sure a swamp will have various sandstones, mudstones, claystones and coal. You cannot be talking about the bedrock in those illustrations. The rock that the landscape sits on could be anything. It could be an Archean batholith. Does that mean that a moose on the Canadian shield is living in a magamatic environment? No, it is living in a boreal forest with a thin cover of soil over an ancient rock. The extant environment tells you very little, if anything, about what happened there before.

Not really.The problem is that you discuss landscapes as depicted for terrestrial environments and then refer them back to the marine sedimentary succession.It is not possible to compare the two. I have said this to you many times already and even Percy has picked up on the importance of it. You have not. You are on a hopeless undertaking.

Actually, you do.In the same post, you say: Sure.A landscape (terrestrial) has rivers, swamps and lakes where sediments are deposited just as you show in the Chinle photo. These deposits are eventually buried by a transgressive marine sequence or perhaps eolian sands and the preserved as layered rocks.By the way, the Chinle as you show it barely qualifies as a rock. It is not as lithified as even the Hermit or the Bright Angel. It is younger and was not as deeply buried and for not as long.

Percy has not been giving you explanations for weeks now. At some point, I gave up. It is discouraging to put a lot of effort into a post only to have you simply say, 'that's impossible'.... end of discussion ... See my previous post.

In fact, it could be a varve.

But the rock type will not be unique.However, guess what ... the fossils change over time in each environment. Indeed, a thin unconfomity may represent millions of years of lost record. There might have been millions of years of sediments (or rocks) eroded away in a hundred thousand years. Each depositonal environment represents only one of many possible at any given time.

Probably more lacustrine than marine. They were big lakes. Just look at the extent of the Green River Formation, or the extent of Lake Agassiz for comparison.This from Wiki.

Those are lacustrine sediments for the most part. I've been there. I know it from the regional geology. The Chinle is overlain by the Wingate Sandstone which is largely eolian.

You keep referring to the illustrations of Mesozoic life and then wonder how they could turn into strata like the Grand Canyon.They are completely different things.As PaulK(?) said, terrestrial landscapes such as those in the illustrations are subject to erosion unless 'frozen' by burial. Otherwise, the would eventually look like old, eroded terrain such as the Canadian Shield. Marine deposits, on the other hand, are entirely depositional and form different types of continuous strata.

We have discussed this before. Marine transgression, basically a rise in sea level would inundate a land surface and 'freeze' it in its topography at the time. Other means would be by burial beneath volcanic ash or encroachment by a sand sea such as the Sahara. Basically, old shield areas are places where the rocks have undergone erosion for a very long time and often look like vast expanses of 'flat and level' topography. They are the ultimate product of the erosion of a continent. The reference was to erosion, not deposition of 'strata' in Faith's usage of the term. Exactly correct. I might quibble over the 'do not often' part, but essentially, yes. Terrestrial landscape are erosional except in the case of local basins. Such a basin might be as small as a sandbar, or as large as the lakes in which the Green River Formation was deposited.And remember, a landscape, such as the one we live on is an unconformity. By definition. At present, however, the Green River Formation is being eroded and carried to the sea (with a temporary stop in Lake Powell, etc.). So, as you indicate, deposition above sea level is ephemeral in geological terms.However, to correct the narrative, the Green River Formation does consist of strata. The topography (landscape) beneath the Green River Formation, and the modern topography cutting into it are not and will not become strata. They are surfaces within the strata and they cut whatever strata are older than the surface. They can be preserved in the strata just as a fossil is preserved in strata. Both have happened, but it's hard to tell which, sometimes. These are the lakes, swamps and rivers that I have discussed. I liken the Coconino to the Namib desert. It is a coastal desert that could expand to the west if sea level were lowered and the climatic conditions were correct. It would, in that case, overlie marine sediments. Some of these blanks are due to disregard for previous posts. If prior posts are rejected on philosphical basis, there really isn't a lot of hope that more data will remedy the situation.In my own case, I have spent hours trying to figure out what Faith is saying, creating all kinds of scenarios for understanding, only to find that they are also rejected.And no, I do not expect 'someone' to accept my explanations going forward. My only objective is to educate and inform anyone who might be reading my post. If someone has questions, I will go out of my way to answer (this post being an example), but until then, I'm not sure that someone might even read my posts. Edited by Admin, : Replace Green River Formation image with a larger version.