Summations Only

Dr A implied it was mostly flat and Tangle took him seriously. I had nothing to do with it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nothng but the usual false accusations.

I'm not going to read all that, it's up to you to characterize it. Of coruse you misunderstood it whatever it is because you always do and then accuse me of lying as you are doing now.Nothing could live on a buried rock, but eventually no matter what the scenario one rock has to lie on top of another to become the stratigraphic column, so there has to be a barren exposed rock at some point and that's when nothing could live on it and at that point there wouldn't be any possibility of anything living at that location at all.You never get anything right but you sling the accusations freely anyway. You should have been suspended LONG ago.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In that scenario it is certain that animal life would just have to disappear with the formation of rock out of its landscape. That is why there have been all these speculations about deep burial of a landscape with some other kind of material than a sediment that becomes another rock on top of it. Because it would take DEEP burial to lithify the sediment.But the whole thing absolutely absurd no matter how it is imagined. At some point you have to have rock on rock and nothing could live on it.quote:Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no way you can get a flat slab of rock from a buried compresed landscape of any type.

Take a mile-square section of land with lots of foliage growing on it, of the type associated with the time period of the dinosaurs. Lots of it cuz dinosaurians eat a lot. It's been going on for millions of years. No, let's just say it's only just started and has been going on for, oh, ten thousand years. In that time the foliage will have grown up and died many times over, beein buried and become compost. So the level of the land rises too, from the accumulating compost. Likewise there are lots of dinosaurian type creatures that also have been born and died in those ten thousand years, been buried and become compost and contributed to the growing height of the land. After millions of years the land has built up quite a bit and new creatures are starting to appear. The lowest level of buried things keeps getting deeper and deeper until after millions of years it hardens into rock. Is this what you are all picturing? Where's the sediment that becomes say a sandstone or a limestone in the stratigraphic column? How does such a lumpy shapeless bunch of stuff turn into a flat rock? What about all the dead things that are accumulating above it? Aren't they hardening too in their composted soil? You aren't going to get the stratigraphic column out of this sort of process. Wake up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No idea how I came up with it? Well, it's similar to some things others have said on this subject, Stile for instance I think way back when he was trying to walk me through his idea of how it all works. But it's also what I imagine when I try to put myself through it. It's more that than a straw man. Other scenarios haven't made any sense to me anyway.The task is to explain how a given time period with its supposed life forms that lived over that period's millions of years, say Permian or Triassic, could ever get from its situation to the rock that represents it in the stratigraphic column. Every time I tried thinking about that I came up with an impossibility so I raised the question and so far I still have no idea how you think it could happen, and I still think it's impossible. You have to get a flat slab of rock in the end, composed of some particular sediment or sequence of sediments. But the living scenario suggests a different kind of earth's surface, one more like that I described.Google Image has changed its format and I can't figure out how to copy and paste an image any more. But go to Permian Period or Triassic Period to see the landscapes I have in mind, that are offered to represent the animals and plants of the period. Start there and tell me how you get from there to the rocks in the stratigraphic column that supposedly represent them where they actually once existed. If you think you've already done that then please point me to the post where you did.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I was addressing a literal landscape, by choosing the Permian and Triassic for the example. I wasn't confusing anything, I intented to choose LAND scapes.So you introduce a sea transgression into the scenario. But surely that WOULD kill off ALL the creatures. And that in fact is what you go on to say: OK, so there is no evolution either, life no longer exists, it's all gone, eroded away or buried, eventually it ends up in the stratigraphic column presumably, though how is still a mystery. Any way I've tried to sort it out everything has to die, and you just added another way.Also, where are the topographic features in the stratigraphic column that you say remain after the transgression. All the strata I've seen in, say, the Grand Staircase area where we find the Triassic, is flat flat flat.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Don't get your question.I just want to see you explain the steps between ANY landscape, which the fossils in a given rock tell you existed on that spot, and the rock itself. Address that, please. Pick any rock and show how the scenario you think it represents became the rock. Pick it from the Grand Canyon or anywhere else you like. Take the "land side of the boundary" then.The Shinumo quartzite monadnock penetrated up through the strata after the strata were already laid down but still wet.Are you even thinking of HOW flat those strata are? How straight the contact line is?"Kayenta swamps and seas." OK, I see there is no way to have this discussion because your interpretations are too bizarre for me. To call some features of a slab of rock "Kayenta swamps and seas" is just too much imaginative reification for me. I hereby drop this whole effort, standard Geology is just too weird.ABE: Well, I guess I SHOULD have asked you to show how you get from those swamps and seas to the rock you say is where they used to be. Lost my bearings there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

ABE: Well, I guess I SHOULD have asked you to show how you get from those swamps and seas to the rock you say is where they used to be. Lost my bearings there.You've got these swamps and seas and they are going to end up represented by a rock in a stack of rocks all very flat. Just show the steps between them.

So if you are implying that mud might have ended up as a flat mudstone rock in the stratigraphic column, the task I'm asking of you is to show how the lake bottom mud became that rock.

Now show how it gets so very flat over a very extensive area and gets itself sandwiched between other sedimentary rocks of different types containing different fossils, all the surrounding terrain no longer in evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've many times described my hypothesis of how the Great Unconformity came abour, and the Shinumo monadnock was part of that whole movement of basement rocks beneath the stack of strata above. The movement broke off the ends of the Supergroup and the quartzite was harder than the other rocks so it didn't break as easily and one piece of it was thrust upward through the Tapeats and into higher layers.

It washed down the canyon when the Flood waters were receding, along with the broken strata from the uppermost layers, and some just got buried out of sight, and some became Vishnu schist.

Made up of many different kinds of rock or minerals metamorphosed by the heat of the volcano beneath the Grand Canyon, the volcano that also produced the granite in that same area.. The abrasion of the original strata by the movement I have in mind would certainly have produced a huge collection of different kinds of particles and the volcano would have metamorphosed them all into a multi-content rock.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.