Summations Only

Of course the rock wasn't replaced, I wasn't clear enough there. The landscape was replaced by a new landscape, that became rock in its turn.By the way I'm glad you affirm original horizontality Perhaps you are unaware that Percy has declared it false and said I can't use the idea.

It's irrelevant if you don't agree with it. That is what I am doing.

Interestingly, when the illogic of the geo scenario of rock-landscape-rock is faced, the only possible explanation of the facts IS the Flood.

What I was doing was following out the logic of the Geological position, not my own. I came to that conclusion from the evidence I gave. No surprise to me, standard Geology is indeed disconnected from reality.

I believe the evidence is clear and logical for the conclusions I have drawn. I know I need to refine it some.

How can there be? It's become a rock. You said so yourself. If it's a marine sedinment/rock then it probably spanned the whole continent and then some as you also said was the case with the marine layers. They cover this enormous expanse very flat. Where are the mountains and the rivers etc? But where do they go on living? All there is of the seafloor or the landscape is the rock. Yes and we all know this is true in reality, but the actual situation that would occur with the rock-landscape-rock scenario leaves nothing living. You know things continue living just because we all know that, but you haven't recognized that if time periods are connected to rocks it can't be true. You assert it anyway because we all know it's true, but you haven't faced the fact that it's true in spite of your theory, in spite of the whole "depositional landscapes" scenario in which a landscape becomes a rock. If THAT's true then your statement about life being continuous and sedimentation is continuous is false. If you honestly think through the implications of the strata you have to see that life couldn't continue. If life continues, as we know it does, you have the wrong theory about the fossils in the rocks: the Geologic Timescale is false.We have a landscape for a particular time period, perhaps the Devonian, it built on the rock that represents the previous time period. The Devonian creatures live on it, then eventually it becomes a rock and they have no place to live. They didn't go anywhere else because there is no place else they got buried and fossilized, only in this rock which represents their time period which is represented by this particular landscape that then became a rock. Sorry I am about that. The thing is I answered you with that GS-GC cross section which shows that the terrestrial layers aren't confined to basins, lakes or sandbars, but extend just as the marine layers do for many thousands of square miles, quite flat and straight and not at all basin-shaped. I have yet to see such an example. I see no unconformities in the terrestrial layers of that cross-section. There is no evidence of that in the strata. There is a rock, a rock among rocks in a stack, and you've agreed that the landscape or seafloor became that rock. But again we all know this, but it is at odds with the evidence of the strata and the Geologic Timescale. It's rock to landscape to rock on which nothing could remain living if it were true. If sedimentation made the rock and erosion did away with the landscape that was there for a while, all there is left is the rock with dead things in it. There is no place for any remaining living things to live. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the whole theory of the Geologic Timescale and the strata and their landscapes is false. And of course that would be true where civilizations are building and there is plenty of evidence of the processes involved. But the landscapes you imagine in the strata left no evidence. A few tracks, a few burrows, some ripple marks. There is no landscape there for things to live in. A bare rock with a few tracks, etc. There is nothing but the surfaces of a rock up against the surface of another rock. But there is nothing there for them to live on when their landscape is becoming a rock, just "soil" becoming rock. That's the problem with landscapes becoming rock. Whatever lived in them can't go on living. And again they didn't go anywhere else either because this is where they were fossilized, in the very rock that was their landscape. You don't mean fossils, you mean creatures that you figure will become fossils? The thing about the human habitations is that they remain identifiable as human habitations even after they are buried. Not so the stratigraphic "landscapes" including "seafloors" that simply disappear completely into the rock, leaving just bits and pieces of things that eventually got fossilized. You might claim anything left living went somewhere else when their landscape became unlivable rock, which would of course be the case with the buried human habitations. But the problem is that there isn't any sign of them anywhere else, they didn't get buried and fossilized anywhere else, they got buried and fossilized in this very rock which you say was their landscape, this and only this rock or "time period."Getting worn out. Hope to finish soon.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, it's not my theory that a landscape or seafloor emerged on top of a rock, but according to Geo theory somehow it did. Sedimentation I guess. Then somehow things grew, and then somehow.... Correction accepted. It should be for you too. OK, while your landscape is being built I guess, that imaginary landscape. When it becomes a rock though, then there's no place for the creatures to live. Really it's a mystery of the Geologic Timescale. That's the whole point of everything I'm saying. You've invented landscapes and you assert that things go on living after I've pointed out that your scenario makes that impossible: in the circumstances inevitably created by the scenario of the strata this is impossible, as I've explained to death many times already. A landscape that becomes a rock means the landscape is gone gone gone and so is everything that lived in it that got buried. Yeah, that's a nice irrelevant abstract statement, but you aren't thinking about the actual situation I'm at such pains to get across to you: a landscape becoming a rock in which are buried the creatures that supposedly lived in that landscape, which represents their "time period." Again there is no sign they went anywhere else because this rock is the only place their fossils are found.
. And where do they go when the sediment for the next "time period" comes along, which hosts a brand new collection of living things and (with the occasional exception I suppose) they don't belong there? Their fossils are found in their own rock/"time period", not the next rock. Where do they go? I've been answering it and answering and answering it. WHERE? Where did the living ones move to? Why don't we find their fossils anywhere else but in their own rock/time period? Where is their landscape? It all became a rock. Now you are inventing another whole imaginary scenario unconnected with the strata, for which there isn't even the evidence of a fossil in a rock.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The life that lived in that landscape that is now deeply buried? What sort of environment sustains them now? How many life forms can live on mere sediment? Or are we now growing a new landscape?But the problem with that is that a particular landscape is determined from a particular rock, and THAT landscape is now buried very deep, you say. If THAT landscape is now being buried very deep nothing is living on it. So you have a new landscape far above it? Or things are living on mere sediment. But THOSE creatures lived in the landscape that is now deeply buried. That's what you learn from the fossils in the rock that was that landscape.Sorry, I keep repeating myself because it's so absurd.So let's see. What we have NOW is the strata. The rocks, the slabs of rock stacked together. ONE of those rocks was supposedly once the landscape that you are saying is now buried deeply. Presumably already containing the fossils that are now found in it. And you are saying that the life forms that are fossilized there continued to go on living but on sediment (the same sediment of which that rock is made?) far above it. I know, I'm still repeating myself. Let me see if I can cut to the chase.Since what we have now is a time-defined stack of rocks I have to suppose that the deep sediment you say covered this now-deeply-buried landscape is going to become the NEXT rock up. Yes? No? But then the creatures living on it are not the creatures found fossilized in that deeply buried rock. Have they evolved then? And they get buried in that sediment that is deeply covering the rock that is the former landscape? Is that your story? But shouldn't there be fossils of the earlier creatures in this sediment far above that rock? I mean, if as you say they went on living but far above the rock that was their landscape then over the great span of time involved in these things they should have been buried in that new sediment and there should be fossils of them there, ABOVE their original landscape which is the rock where their fossils are always found.This shouldn't be all that hard to follow but I bet you'll make it hard.One way or another the rock-landscape-rock scenario does not hold together. If the landscape is deeply buried then you have the problem of the creatures from that landscape/time period now being found high above it But their fossils are not found there in the strata; they are found in the rock/landscape you say was buried deep.But I suppose maybe the deep sediment eventually eroded down quite a bit anyway, in order to form the next layer in the strata? But now there is no place again for the creatures to live.Any way you look at it the standard thinking about landscapes becoming rocks is absurd and can't have existed. I certainly don't, but then I believe the strata were all laid down as different sediments in a very deep stack in a brief period of time, months at most, by the Flood of course, and the weight of the stack compacted the lower strata so that when the Flood drained away they were in that compressed form and eventually turned to rock as a result. I also think the strata were originally much deeper and the upper layers were washed away in the receding Flood water.But back to YOUR theory: burying your landscape really doesn't explain anything. The living things that you say moved to a higher level of sediment aren't fossilized in any rock except the one now buried, and if that sediment was eroded away instead, they again had no place to live just as in the version I described. Now I suppose maybe you could say they evolved and are no longer the same creatures, and are now getting buried in this sediment above the former landscape, and now THIS sediment gets buried deeply (and of course it isn't the same sediment, it's a different one) with these evolved fossils in it, and a whole new stack of sediment builds up on top of this new buried landscape.Oh it's too absurd even to try to figure it out. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We did happen to be discussing where the living ones would live. You proposed this very deep sediment that had buried the former landscape in which they had lived. You've got them living on sediment far above the landscape that is now buried deeply under the sediment, which contains fossils of their kind, which today is rock. How can they live above that landscape where their fossils don't occur, but certainly would if they really lived there. But the problem is that before they evolved the original creatures would have died and left fossils in this new layer above where their fossils are found today. If you're now giving a new scenario for how all the time periods developed, it would be very odd if these transplanted creatures did not leave fossils in their new landscape as they did in the former one. But that didn't happen, did it? So the whole story is fiction. Of course if they evolved just in time to be transplanted then that's just a little too pat, don't you think? Especially if this is now the new explanation for how all the strata and their time periods came about. Certainly if nothing had changed hey'd be leaving their fossils in a level above the level that is associated with them in the Geo Timescale. But they didn't, showing this new scenario of deep sediment is false. The sediment is what was eroded, it didn't erode anything. Since it confused you I added a word in brackets to clarify. [qs]One would be, as suggested above, that the original form of the creatures would have died and been buried in this higher layer of sediment before they evolved, but there are no fossils of them in this higher layer.But another I also mentioned is, if this is intended to describe THE way ALL the strata and their fossils formed, it's just too pat, a "just-so" story. But so is the Geo Timescale anyway.And you've also got all this extra sediment on top of the former rock that has to be eroded down to become the next rock in the strata. So each layer follows this pat scheme?Do you really really believe all this stuff you describe?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Drawing the logical conclusion from a set of facts does not imply that anyone holds that conclusion and I did not imply that, far from it, in fact entirely the opposite.When a landscape gets buried the point is that anything still living would have no place to live because there is no longer a landscape to support life. Sediment alone isn't going to support anything that needs plants or smaller animals for food. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A landscape? All I said was that if it gets buried there's no longer a landscape for its creatures to live on. I didn't suggest it gets buried, edge did, PaulK did, others did too I think. My first version of this is "if it becomes a rock" then there is no place for its creatures to live. Keeping n mind that a NEW landscape implies a NEW time period and a NEW set of creatures, which in itself challenges the Geo Timescale.But sediment is covering the landscape according to my opponents. Very deeply too. I asked a couple of times if they are thinking of another landscape forming but all I got back was "sediment" as the new surface, not another landscape. I've said nothing about how it happens. In fact I've been wondering if anyone is going to try to describe the process. But I just take it as a done deal as others have described it. I've been following edge's remarks as a matter of fact. He's the one -- though there have also been others -- who answered my query where the living things go when the landscape is buried, by saying they live on top of the sediment that buried the landscape. They said "sediment," not "new landscape." They also said that the sediment buried it very deep for it to lithify. You need to read ALL The posts if you are going to comment. But I'd have the same objection to that: millimeter by millimeter doesn't provide support for the creatures that are still living from the time of the buried landscape. Their life support is gone and now they have to wait for another one to develop millimeter by millimeter? Looks to me like there isn't any kind of scenario standard geology can come up with that would solve the problems I'm raising. The creatures need a landscape in order to thrive. Theirs has gone, becoming rock. Sediment can't support them. As I said from the beginning it looks to me like there is nothing to sustain life left and all of it would have to die out. But they keep saying, no, they are living on this very deep sediment. Not a new landscape which would have the other problem of introducing a new time period while the creatures of the former time period are the only living things, and now you are saying it happens so slowly it's clear that nothing could find sustenance in it anyway.Are you following this? So far the weird misreadings are quite remarkable. That's because there was a landscape there for them to live on. But remember we're talking about the strata, or at least I am, the strata which are said to be the remains of former landscapes in which creatures lived, particular creatures in a very particular landscape, the strata which are now slabs of rock formed from sediments. Not soil which has organic matter in it, but sediment which offers nothing to sustain life above maybe some insects, if those. So from stuff inside the rock a whole "depositional environment" or landscape is imagined to have existed on the site of the rock. Eventually the landscape got eroded and broken down to become that rock. Where did the living things go? I asked. Well, the landscape was covered deeply in sediments and they are living on top of that. Not a landscape, sediment.Ah well. That's very funny.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, I'm still trying to account for how a rock was once a landscape that became a rock. The rocks of the strata are made up in many cases of sediments that are not fertile, just sand or calcareous ooze and so on, that show no signs of ever having been fertile. Besides, if they were fertile why isn't anyone describing it as a new landscape rather than "sediments?" A fertile sediment isn't going to feed a dinosaur. If it's a seafloor ... well, give me the scenario. The only thing for sure in the scenario so far is that the landscape the creatures lived in has disappeared -- under deep sediment according to you all. Seems to me if that situation is all there is for any period of time, even briefly, there is nothing to sustain life and it would all have to die.Do you have a scenario that would work? So far I haven't seen one.

As you are describing it this all happens way too slowly for the creatures to be buried and fossilized. They'd have been first mangled by scavengers and then just rotted away to dust in such a time frame.One thing the Flood has over ALL the scenarios you can come up with is that it would have provided the PERFECT conditions for fossilization: rapid burial and compaction. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Exactly. But this suggests that nothing could have lived from that time period, and that's why the subject became where the living creatures that didn't get fossilized went on living, which is how the explanation of the deep sediment burying the landscape came up, which is where you all said they went on living. Then I argued that they couldn't live on bare sediments anyway. And so on and so forth. I said that because some here, Pressie in particular, was objecting to the idea of a buried landscape, thinks it's a very funny idea. But that's when he assumed it was my idea. So I'm saying I didn't suggest it, you did. He can explain why he's criticizing you. The question has to do with whether there were any alive at all after the landscape disappeared, got buried, whatever, and if so where did they go? Remember? On top of a lot of sediment that buried the landscape, says you all. The thing about a new landscape is that it implies a different rock in the strata which implies a new time period which implies new creatures, or some new creatures. So you say they evolved. But I still have the question what happened to the creatures that were still living from the previous landscape after so many of them were buried with it? There had to be a period when they were still living, but without their landscape and no new landscape, where would that have been? On top of the sediment you say. How do they survive on mere sediment?

At the point in the scenario being discussed there hasn't been time for plants to grow, the sediment has simply been piling up.