Summations Only

I think you're forgetting the compaction part of the lithification process. The flat layer of rock that you see today wasn't so flat and thin when it was on the surface in the past. It's been smashed down by all the new surfaces on top of it. All the normal surface conditions were there when it was on top, it just later got covered in more layers of stuff that compacted it down.Yes, the creatures that were there at the time it was the surface would have been dead when it was turning into rock, as this would be happening much below the surface.But there would be things left for the next time period, as they would be up on the surface in a normal environment instead of being buried far below the surface turning into rock.

A big part of the lithification process is compression. What you are seeing today is not what the layers looked like when they were originally layed down.They have been compressed and that makes them look straighter and flatter than they originally were.

No, not existed ON the rock. The landscapes, themselves, became the rock through the processes of sedimentation and lithification.

Not compaction alone, no. You need sedimentation first. But even then, the layers aren't so flat until after they are compacted.You can't look at the flatness of the layers and think that when those layers were on the surface they were also as flat. I didn't mean that a mountain gets compacted. You got to have erosion and sedimentation, then later you get compaction.All three of those processes increase flatness, so the flatness doesn't show what the layer looked like when it was on the surface before those processes. Actually no, it depends on how flat the layer underneath that it's being compressed into, not the one above it adding to the compression.And when the compressive pressure approaches infinity, the flatness approaches perfection. The further down you go the flatter the layers will be. That literally has nothing to do with it.

Asgara gave you one in Message 492:

quote:

---

Slartibartfast

---

You should've looked it up:

quote:

---

Slartibartfast is a Magrathean, and a designer of planets. His favourite part of the job is creating coastlines, the most notable of which are the fjords found on the coast of Norway on planet Earth, for which he won an award.

---

Option 1: It was a result of natural processes.
Alternative 1: The Flood did it.
Alternative 2: Slartibartfast did it.
Alternative 3: Satan made it look like that to trick you.
Alternative 4: Ancient aliens specifically designed it to look that way.There, now you have three more alternatives.

No, the landscapes are not between the slabs of rock.The landscapes, themselves, have become the slabs of rock.The landscapes get eroded and lithified and turn into slabs of rock.They do not occur between slabs of rock.

No, the rock isn't still the former landscape, the former landscape changed to become the rock. And it requires being beneath the surface.The former landscape gets turned into rock after it is buried under additional landscapes through erosion and sedimentation.The former landscapes get lithified because of the pressure on them from being buried under the landscapes on top of them that have been eroded and sedimented.I might have made up that last word "sedimented", but I hope you get the point.

The problem for me, personally, is that I cannot tell the difference between you trying to fit geological theory into a flood scenario and you just not understanding the geological theory.Like when you were talking about landscapes being on, or between, the rocks; is that you misunderstanding geological theory, or is that you trying to fit the theory into a flood model?