Summations Only

quote:

---

There was no idea of the Flood's killing plants, just all living things "with breath in them" which means those living on land. There was also no idea of all sea life being killed, though obviously much of it was.

---

Obviously your Flood geology is not mentioned in the Bible. However, that is what we are speaking of and your Flood geology features massive erosion to produce massive amounts of sediment which is dumped on the remains of the original landscape, and most of which rapidly turns to rock. Plants - even if they could somehow survive the Flood as the Bible describes it - are not going to survive that.

quote:

---

I already explained the rest. I expect great vitality in anything that lived before the Flood, just as the people born before the Flood lived many hundreds of years afterward. So recovering rapidly is to be expected of any surviving living things. Plus all the other helps I mentioned, provisions remaining on the ark, sacrificial animals for food, seeds to plant, etc etc etc.

---

That hardly sounds like enough, but if you feel that it is then surely the mainstream view has no problem at all, since there is far less damage and far more time to recover.

quote:

---

No, I've very specifically addressed the conditions set up by mainstream geology's claim of finding a landscape/"depositional environment" in particular contents of a rock. To get a rock from a landscape requires its burial, but if it's buried there is no more landscape to sustain life. You all keep imagining there is nevertheless, without sufficiently answering the fact that there couldn't be if it's been buried

---

It has been answered repeatedly. There are animals living now in depositional environments. They do not have a problem - so why imagine that things were any different in the past? Your claim is false and obviously so and the t has been pointed out so often that you have no excuse for pretending that is has not been answered.

quote:

---

If you have a succession of landscapes in mind, the way settlements keep building on top of settlements in a tell, then you have to account for how these didn't all become rock

---

No we do not. You keep mixing up two things that are almost entirely separate despite the fact I have already pointed out the problem more than once. It takes deep burial - and significant time - to turn the sediments into rock. But that has nothing to do with the "problem" of finding somewhere to live because the burial is so slow that animals can just go on living on the surface, as they do today.

quote:

---

But there's only one segment of strata that represents a given time period

---

I have no idea what you mean by that.

quote:

---

How many landscapes?

---

That is not even a meaningful question. We are talking about slow and gradual changes, not sudden transformations. There is no sensible way of counting, because there is no way to say when one landscape becomes another. Let alone the question of deposition versus erosion - if erosion strips back a landscape do you count it the same as an earlier landscape at the same level or a different one ?

quote:

---

If many or only one then once it's buried or they are all buried there's no more sustenance for many of the living things from that period

---

And that is wrong as we have repeatedly pointed out.

quote:

---

Seems to me there are lots of questions that need to be answered that so far haven't been despite all the claims to the contrary

---

Again an obvious falsehood "seems" true to you. Your judgement seems amazingly poor.

quote:

---

YOU ARE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT. The problem for the standard theory is NOT recovery, the problem is getting from a landscape to a rock to a landscape to a rock to account for all the time periods.

---

You are the one who brought up the question of where creatures would live. You claimed that they could not "live on sediment". You don't get to ignore that just because it is a far worse problem for your views. So no, I am not missing the point. - I am making a point and I do not appreciate you attempting to shout it down,And really it is rather rare to go from rock to landscape - only in areas buried in lava or eroded down to bedrock would count. And in both cases there does not seem to be a problem. We have the time for weathering to break down the surface rock or for sediment to be deposited, for the plants to colonise the area, for life to gradually return.Landscape to rock is even less of a problem. Deep burial provides the pressure needed to turn soil into rock.

quote:

---

The Flood does not have that problem. The earth is destroyed and a new landscape grows up on top of the whole stack of sediment

---

So obviously the whole burial issue was a complete red herring, just as I said. If it is a problem at all it is a far worse problem for you - and you say that it is not.

quote:

---

Because of the peculiar situation of the strata -- enormous slabs of rock BETWEEN WHICH these landscapes are postulated, and which are assigned great blocks of time

---

You really ought to understand better than now. Terrestrial deposits represent a slowly changing landscape, which builds up over long periods of time - your millions of years. The divide between different formations may be a little special - but only really in the case where deposition halted for a while. All this is simply things we see today, which do not pose a problem today and if you want to say that they pose a problem in the past you need more than vague and mistaken ideas about how future strata are laid down.

quote:

---

Nothing lives on the surface of sediments, a landscape is necessary, and you are imagining such a landscape without accounting for it or facing the problems I keep raising about it.

---

Funny how you insisted that was not a problem when we were talking about the Flood even though it would obviously be a far bigger problem if it is a problem at all.But of course things do live "on top of sediments" how often do I need to point to river floodplains before you get the point ?

quote:

---

You want to think in terms of continuous gradual change, landscapes changing, living things changing and adapting, but you are having to impose that idea on the actual facts: the STACK OF ROCKS

---

Rocks which contain the evidence to show that we are correct.So your problems are purely imaginary.

quote:

---

The ark landed on a mountain, not on a flatland of bare sediments.

---

I was talking about the rest of the planet. When you don't have the time to fit history in anyway losing a whole lot more waiting for the land to recover is not really viable.

quote:

---

And you'd think I'd know if animal life could live on bare flat sediments or not, it's a very simple point that everybody should understand, but of course y'all prefer to complicate it.

---

It's the Flood geology that has bare flat sediments covering the entire world. It's a pretty rare occurrence in reality.

quote:

---

Back to Geo Theory: Right after deposition the thing is what we've got is bare flat sediment on top of a rock the previous landscape turned into.

---

Generally you do not. And as I keep having to point out the "previous" landscape won't be turning to rock because it isn't buried.

quote:

---

While my imagination may not always be up to the task of constructing what must have happened, the idea of some continually livable world is certainly false when you have to keep getting from a life-sustaining environment to a bare flat rock in a stack of bare flat rocks.

---

The problem is that you confuse your imagination with reality. We don't have to keep "getting from a life-sustaining environment to a bare flat rock" because we don't say that happens. At least not in any way that causes problems for us. I've explained this often enough that I cannot see why you are being so obtuse.

quote:

---

But this must happen because of the strata which tell you they represent landscapes. Each layer or formation of rock has been a landscape and each has a rock or formation on top of it that has been a landscape. The upper landscape would have had to develop on top of the lower expanse of rock while it was exposed. If it's rare the whole geo system falls apart.

---

You have completely forgotten that it requires deep burial to turn the former landscape into rock, so there will be plenty of unlithified soil above it. So no, it IS rare for a new landscape to have to develop on bare rock for the reasons I said.

quote:

---

But you can't have the rock breaking down because it has to end up in the stack of strata as a flat slab of rock.

---

It doesn't have to, so you are hopelessly wrong again.

quote:

---

But at each time period in the geo scenario there has to come a point where there is nothing but sediment/rock on the very site where there had been a landscape with life flourishing in it. Has to end there, with the flat featureless horizon in my OP cartoon, because that's what we see in the strata.

---

We do not see it in the strata. It is just something you made up.

The most interesting parts of your post are what it doesn't say.For one it omits most of the evidence for past landscapes (although that is hardly surprising)More importantly it omits all the daft things you've been saying which show what a poor understanding you have.I think we can safely conclude that you know very well that there are things you don't understand at all well. Some of them very simple.

quote:

---

You find it insulting that I consider it ridiculous. I'm sorry about that but that's how I see it.

---

I find it more insulting that you refuse to pay attention to the answers you've been given - or sometimes even refuse to admit that they exist. Your opinion is so obviously worthless it carries no sting.

Perhaps then you can explain the omission of any of the contentious points that have come up in this discussion, such as your confusion over the whole issue of burial and lithification.Surely your failure to understand a rather simple point counts against your assertion that you have a good understanding.

So, you are still unaware that the entire "where does the life go" argument was completely bogus, and that bringing up the deep burial required for lithification in that context was an obvious red herring ?You are unaware that the deep burial required for lithification implies that there would be a considerable depth of unlithified deposits on top of the material "turning to rock"'?Really ?

quote:

---

Stating the uniformitarian party line using examples from the present does absolutely nothing to clarify the issues I've been trying to talk about, which are based on the facts as I find them in the strata and encountered in the discussion. Most of the posts here are irrelevant in exactly this sense.

---

in other words the entire problem with this discussion is that you will not accept that what you "see" is incorrect. And rather than deal with that you declare all posts pointing out your mistake "irrelevant" - typically without even bothering to directly say so - and ignore them. However, they clearly are relevant, so your tactic is neither honest nor productive.

quote:

---

The formation of a landscape under ordinary situations is not what is "puzzling" me if that's the right word anyway. I'm trying to talk about the UNIQUE situation of forming a landscape ON TOP OF A HUGE FLAT SLAB OF ROCK (which as the geo column was forming would have been the uppermost surface in the column, or the latest rock/time period representative to have formed

---

And when it is pointed out that that even forming a landscape directly on rock is a rare situation you ignore it, and you dismiss the explanations you do get on spurious grounds.

quote:

---

But the more difficult problem is how that new landscape eventually becomes a new rock in the strata, as it must because that's the evidence in the geo column itself: one rock on top of another rock, with an assumed landscape "in between," meaning the landscape that grew on top of the former rock/time period and eventually became a rock on top of that rock/time period.

---

That isn't a difficult problem at all. It eventually gets buried deeply enough to lithified, and it does.

quote:

---

Your parents' landscape isn't going to become an enormous flat rock on the surface of a stack of enormous flat rocks as has to be the case in the geological scenario of the construction of the rock strata from landscapes.

---

Terrestrial strata aren't generally enormous and why is the rest even an issue ?

quote:

---

The strata situation is unique; you can't answer it with standard scenarios from today.

---

You say that but you have given us no reason to think so.Setting artificial barriers on discussion where posts that do not accept your assumptions get automatically rejected is not a good way to get to the truth.

I am not convinced that miscommunication is an issue at all.With regard to terminology1) I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a completely unlivable landscape.
However the main issue here seems not to be the definition but the insistence that the entire world must regularly be reduced to either bare rock or bare sediment (presumably without the organic element found in soil). In reality neither is really an issue for mainstream geology, although Flood geology appears to propose the latter.2) In reality all strata are part of the local geological column and there are no strata that have any special claim to be part of "the geological column". So when you say

quote:

---

"...I DO mean ONLY the "strata" that belong to the "geological column" which is the basis for the Geological Timescale as well"

---

we are left guessing what you might mean, because it does not really mean anything.3) the strata are dated to the time periods when the sediment was deposited.
That dating is a product of relative dating supplemented by radiometric dates where available, and the time periods generally reflect changes in the fossils found.Because we generally do not have good markers for the divide between periods it is necessary to remember that the boundaries may be a bit fuzzy.It is not the case that we identify periods by the type of the rock. This has been pointed out multiple times, and I remember quoting a YEC source to that effect. So I really do not understand why you would say:

quote:

---

It simply is a fact that time periods ARE assigned to particular layers and formations of rocks, not rocks as composed of particular sediments but rocks that occur in a certain order in the geological column in whatever form and wherever it is found.

---

This claim is flatly wrong. It is not a fact and anyone claiming a basic understanding of geology should know better.And if this is what you mean by "the strata that belong to the geological column" I am afraid that you are talking about a figment of your imagination.4) This terminology is generally used to deny the presence of surface features preserved in the rocks (although later folding is also a problem for YEC claims)
I don't find that a useful addition to the debate.5) a comment on this: I think that the internal structure of formations is of great relevance. The whole point of the discussion is to talk about the environment in which the original material was deposited, and the structure is important information.I think that the real issue is the insistence that the entire world must be rendered uninhabitable. There no clear reason to think that is even remotely likely has been presented - especially when we consider that the Flood scenario proposed does a far more thorough job than any natural processes we might reasonably expect, and even that does not finish things off. I would have thought that providing such reasons would have been done in the first few posts - but here we are.Edited by PaulK, : Added more on points 2 and 3Edited by PaulK, : A (probably) better understanding of point 2

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.

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.

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)

quote:

---

Why oh why is this so difficult? "It has to be what we see in the strata" means "it has to be what we see in the strata."

---

The problem is that it is trivial and if it has any significance to the argument it has not been explained. Hence some expect there to be more to it.

quote:

---

Each time period is represented by one landscape but can be represented by many different sediments/rocks

---

I have no idea why you think that a period would be "represented by one landscape" unless you are talking about a book. And since different sediments or rocks would seem to imply different landscapes - sandstone might mean a desert while limestone might mean a sea of a lake - it becomes even more unclear.

quote:

---

The point was that as everybody is talking about piling the sediments on very deep to create the rock it seems to be forgotten that the rock has to end up in the geological column as we see it.

---

I see no reason to think that anybody had forgotten that.

quote:

---

If there are many rocks in a time period then there have to be that many sedimentary depositions one on top of another that are getting lithified, and that would require a great depth of sediment on top of those too

---

Which would in most cases be largely the exact same sediments.

quote:

---

Which then either has to be eroded away so that only the rocks in the strata are left, or has to be the particular sediments to be incorporated into the next series of landscapes/sediments/rocks representing the next time period in the strata

---

You still be stating the obvious, without any clear point.

quote:

---

It sounds to me like it's getting more physically impossible with each new requirement.

---

It doesn't seem at all problematic to me. Why do you think that it is "getting more physically impossible" when you aren't adding any new difficulties ?

quote:

---

Further complicated by the requirement that they end up as quite flat and straight one on top of another in some cases covering a huge area as well.

---

The area is there at the start so it isn't related to lithification (although some may be lost to erosion). And you keep exaggerating the flatness, too.

quote:

---

I was merely referring to those illustrations given for a particular time period, as I posted in Message 333. They represent the whole time period, one illustration for the whole time period.

---

So they show a "typical" landscape for the period (maybe not even typical, just a reconstructed landscape). There really isn't any significance to showing only one.

quote:

---

You are right it's a lot more complicated than that. So now it's a landscape for a rock and more than one for time periods that are represented by many rocks.

---

I don't really like the concept of "a landscape for a rock" because the whole idea that you can count individual landscapes over time seems impossible. As I said earlier the landscape will always be changing, so when do you decide that it has become a different landscape ? I cannot think of any clear-cut criteria. (And in those cases the landscape gets eroded back, material that was once on the surface will be on the surface again, so maybe some rocks represent two landscapes).And let us not forget that the strata covering large areas that you like so much are generally marine, so if you want to include them you have to count seabed as a landscape.