Summations Only

This one is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Oh, I dont know about that. I just "assume" that thin sections of those rocks I can study under a microscope are real...Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Once again reality shows that you are simply repeating falsehoods.Finding a fossil imprint of a leaf inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that the leaf fell from a tree on a surface environment onto the ground BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.Finding a tree stump inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that the tree grew on a surface environment BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.Finding a fossil critter inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that the critter lived on a surface environment BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.Finding a fossil imprint of tracks inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that a critter lived and walked on that surface environment BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.Finding petrified stream ripples inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that a stream ran across that surface environment BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.Finding petrified sand dunes inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that a desert surface environment was there BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.Ancient environments are as real as an Old Earth and as evidenced as anything happening today.

You quoted only part of what I said. What I actually said in Message 912 was: This seems to precisely capture the situation. You believe changing landscapes cause a region to become uninhabitable, other people do not, and so it's still an open point. I don't understand the objection.To everyone else: Many of the replies have tried capture the full range of what might happen to cause the geological record, and I think this is causing confusion. Faith wants to understand how geology thinks landscapes like those we see around us today can become layers like those we see in the Earth's strata.I continue to suggest that tracing how a landscape of net deposition (actually the five or ten or however many feet of material beneath its surface topography) becomes a stratigraphic layer. It has been pointed out that the preservation of soil strata isn't that common in the geological record, but it *does* happen, and it is the scenario that has the strongest connection to today's landscapes - the one's we claim can become stratigraphic layers. The present is the key to the past, so prove it.Please, no replies to this message. I still have another 30 messages to read. If by the end of the thread I feel I need more information or clarification then I'll post another message.

I still have many messages to read before I reach the end of the thread, but I did want to respond to this now rather than possibly forget later.I think it might be helpful if you described what you think is happening to cause a landscape to become uninhabitable. The scenario I've been urging is a landscape of slow net deposition. As the landscape slowly accumulates material and gradually rises in elevation, what do you think happens to cause it to become uninhabitable?

In the hope that it might help the sides understand each other I'll point out that this describes the interpretation of modern geology, and Faith already understands that modern geology thinks this. She believes that modern geology is wrong, that it is ignoring things that would have to happen as current surfaces become buried under accumulating material eroded from higher regions. I think we have to develop a more clear understanding of what Faith thinks those things are.Please, no replies to this message.

Since I too don't want to forget the issues here I'll give a general reply now.I didn't take into account the phrase about how the question of uninhabitable space is still open because i'd given the scenario that showed how I arrived at my view while the other side hadn't done anything but insist that I'm wrong, so their believing that there is still inhabitable space is nothing but assumption, making this not exactly an unresolved open question. However I agree that I shouldn't have ignored it.I thought I'd many times explained that I believe that habitat is lost when the environment/landscape is completely buried, no matter how long that takes, since that is the inevitable precondition for it to become a rock in the stratigraphic column. There could be other scenarios, but so far nobody has offered one and although I keep thinking I may eventually come up with one myself I keep getting discouraged by the attitude of the opposition and think I'm leaving, which perhaps I should, or already should have.And thank you for pointing out that jar is just repeating the standard view of geology, what I've said over and over is just begging the question.

When Faith calls destruction of a landscape that renders it uninhabitable "part of the puzzle" I don't think she's referring to marine transgression/regression. She understands that a sea moving across the land destroys terrestrial habitats, and that a sea retreating from land destroys marine habitats.The "puzzle" part is how a landscape can remain habitable while at the same time becoming buried. I continue to push my example of a landscape of net deposition that gradually rises in elevation (maybe a foot or two per century) while continuously providing a habitat where life flourishes for millennia and preserving a record of all that time. Again, I realize such landscapes aren't often preserved, but this scenario seems to me to have the greatest potential for ferreting out Faith's precise objection.

quote:

---

I didn't take into account the phrase about how the question of uninhabitable space is still open because i'd given the scenario that showed how I arrived at my view

---

You neglect to mention that your scenario doesn't actually address the issue.

quote:

---

while the other side hadn't done anything but insist that I'm wrong,

---

You have got to admit that trying to gauge the habitability of a region by completely ignoring the surface is a pretty big mistake.Nevertheless the fact that you have failed to make a case is quite sufficient to refute your argument.Admin - it is time to face the facts. Faith has no argument and is resorting to one of her usual attempts to pretend she won anyway.

The fact is Faith that the standard view of geology is supported by irrefutable evidence while your fantasy has no supporting evidence. Again, that is simple another falsehood Faith.People have pointed out to you numerous examples where there is still habitable space. It is not an assumption but rather the conclusion of the evidence.Remember the example of the North American inland sea. There the environment went from terrestrial to marine and then back to terrestrial yet things continued to live at that location even as the original terrestrial and then marine environments were lithified. They continued to live there even as the lithified environment was raised and another terrestrial environment created on top of the lithified material. And no one has claimed that things continue to live on a deeply buried environment. What is claimed is that critter continue to live on the surface and near surface and waters.

Again, this seems to say that a landscape can only be an area of net erosion. How can a landscape form if it's always an area of net erosion? I've got a hundred feet of soil beneath my house. How did it get there if at all stages up to the present it was an area of net erosion?A statement that I *would* understand is that a landscape's surface is represented by the boundary between strata or substrata and not by the rocks above or below, though I suspect that might not be the point you were trying to communicate.I wanted to clarify this part: When you say that the environment "resides on top of the rock as a land surface" you mean that a landscape of soil (or sand or whatever) of some depth exists on top of the rock. The top surface of the environment or landscape is not rock, at least not in most places.Edited by Admin, : Fix typo.

I'm responding as I read, so people may already have responded to this, but I wanted to call attention to it anyway. From Faith's Message 938: This is a key point. Faith does not accept that the present is the key to the past, that the geological record documents the same kinds of processes and events that we see occurring today. While still discussing the topic I suggest making clear what it is we see in ancient strata that is a record of the same processes we see today.Edited by Admin, : Fix message number.

This statement is true.It takes a very long time for a livable-upon-landscape to become rock. For it to be buried deep enough, and the pressures to act on it long enough, we're talking millions of years.So, yes.
When a landscape becomes rock, all living things that once lived on that landscape will be dead. Because living things don't live for millions of years. They would have died long, long ago. Long before the landscape became rock. Long before their habitats were destroyed.Let's try with some average numbers.
We'll take your simple environment #1 with a realistic amount of sedimentation: About a quarter of a millimeter per year.
This means that it will take about 100 years for something to be buried an inch deep.Try to think about that.
We have 100 years going by. Creatures are growing up, dying, decomposing. Plants are growing and being eaten, trees are getting hit by lightning. Some fall over, some keep growing. But nothing's getting buried. No habitats are being destroyed. There's simply an inch of sediment to deal with over the course of 100 years.But... all the creatures that lived in year 1 are all dead by year 100. Most are decomposed and eaten away. One died and wasn't touched, and is now surrounded by an inch of sediment.This whole process continues. Creatures live and die. Plants live and die. Habitats are moved or re-arranged. The sediment keeps piling up. Another hundred years, another inch surrounds our not-touched dead creature from 200 years ago.Fast forward 2500 years.
Our not-touched creature that died in year one is now buried under 2-feet of sediment. It's starting to get crushed and flattened by the weight of the landscape above it. Everything that existed at year 1 is now long dead. Some of the habitats are destroyed, others were re-arranged over the years, others were moved completely. The surface is still only dealing with an extra inch of sediment every 100 years.Keep going for 25 000 years.
The not-touched creature is now 20 feet under the surface. He's been flattened out pretty decent by the weight.
The surface, however, is still growing away at the surface. Plants are still growing, dying. Trees are still growing, some falling over, some destroyed in forest fires. Creatures are still scurrying about in new habitats they find/make during their time. Every living creature easily overcomes the incoming inch of sediment every 100 years.Now we're at 50 000 years.
The not-touched creature is buried by 40 feet of sediment.
The elevation changes and the ocean starts encroaching into the land above our not-touched creature.
The ocean comes in at a rate of 0.001 miles each year. That's about 5 feet in-land each year. Plenty of time for animals to re-arrange their habitats on the surface. To move away completely. To just eat elsewhere. Or to live and die as they've been doing for 50 000 years now.At 100 000 years, the ocean has moved in 50 miles.
Sedimentation continues.
Our not-touched creature is now 80 feet below the bottom of the ocean, 50 miles from shore.Perhaps this habitat continues for a million years.Our not-touched creature is now 800 feet below the bottom of the ocean, 50 miles from shore.
Ocean creatures are swimming over top of him, in the ocean. Habitats are still left to rot, or re-arranged or moved completely. The creatures are still easily dealing with the extra inch of sediment every 100 years... that's much less than the thickness of your fingernail every year to "deal with."But the elevation changes again. The ocean starts retreating back out. Again at 0.001 miles each year.At 1 100 000 years since year one we have:
Not-touched creature is buried 880 feet below the surface.
Ocean is back where it started.
Ocean-creatures live in the ocean.
Land-creatures are beginning to re-populate the back-to-land-again area.
Habitats are left to rot or re-arranged or moved completely
Every 100 years there's another inch of sediment in the area.Now we're at 2 million years.
The surface landscape is back to being a lush environment.The Not-touched dead creature is buried 1600 feet below the surface.
His landscape (1600 feet below the surface, 2 million years later) is now rock, and he's now a fossil.Below the surface there is about 800 feet of land-sediment.
Below that we have 720 feet of ocean-sediment.
Below that we have 80 feet of land-sediment again.
And that's where our not-touched dead creature is now... at 1600 feet below the surface. As a rock.This is our "geological column" 800 feet of land-sediment, 720 feet of ocean-sediment, 80 feet of land-sediment again.Does that help some, maybe?
This isn't an exact replica of everything that happens. This is a general, simplified, specific example that can very well occur in reality. If anything, my time-lines are too short. But hopefully this helps gives you a general idea of what "the geologic column" actually is. This example also sort of nullifies or ignores the concept of compression to make things easier... kind of like ignoring wind-resistance to make simple calculations easier for a thrown or falling object.Hopefully it can lend some insight to the area you may be having issue with.Edited by Stile, : Made new title. Because a happy Moose is a happy forum.

Not so. It IS an assumption and there is NO evidence for ianything I've seen along these lines. People have given speculations and guesses, nothing that could be tracked through the puzzle to any kind of certain conclusion.And I would like to wait until Percy gets through to the end of the thread before posting anything more. All you are doing as usual is begging the question anyway.
'

quote:

---

Not so. It IS an assumption and there is NO evidence for ianything I've seen along these lines. People have given speculations and guesses, nothing that could be tracked through the puzzle to any kind of certain conclusion.

---

The "puzzle" is a completely general idea, lacking all relevant specifics. It is an assumption that there is nowhere else for life to go - and certainly there is no evidence for that. Replying with reasonable possibilities is entirely adequate.Meanwhile the sediments deposited according to Walther's Law do provide some evidence to the contrary. As does the continued existence of life in present-day depositional environments.

Do you admit that the center of what is now North America exists?Do you admit that many of the geological columns there show terrestrial sediments, then marine sediments and now is a terrestrial environment?Do you admit that terrestrial environment fossils and marine environment fossils have ben found in the rocks that make up those geological columns?If so, then it is not an assumption but rather a conclusion that life existed in each of those environments.