Summations Only

I certainly hope others may come along who can interpret the maps better than you do.You don't seem to grasp that the states in which the Chinle Formation is found are all mostly west of the Rockies, and the Rockies are that band of volcanoes in the maps in the book. Here's a map showing the location of the Rockies today: Here's the Wikipedia quote about the Chinle Formation again: All these are west of the Rockies, with the last two partially in the Rockies. Which doesn't help the situation since while deep ocean makes the west unlivable, active volcanoes make the mountains unlivable during this time period.The Wikipedia quote goes on to say that a formation east of the Rockies is sometimes included as part of the Chinle Formation, and in the Triassic Period that area is dry land and not under water. However, the west IS under water and there are lots of dinosaur fossils there. So there is definitely a contradiction between the interpretation of a landscape with dinosaurs in that area and the paleogeographic interpretation of deep ocean covering it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, I still don't get what you are trying to say. I also don't care.

If I saw an error I'd admit it, so obviously I don't see an error. Do you ever consider such a possibility or is it so important to you to accuse me of moral faults that just never enters your mind?What YOU don't get is that that is NOT the California coast as we know it today. California had not been built up, there really wasn't much of California or the west coast at all yet, it WAS under deep ocean. All the states today to which the Chinle Formation belongs were UNDER WATER. However, as I see on the next page the volcanoes appear to be more to the west of the Rockies than in the Rockies. Which doesn't help matters anyway: there is still no place for the dinosaurs, whether because of deep water or volcanoes. All this is going on during the shifting of the continents after the break-up of Pangaea.(And most likely the last phases of the Flood.) Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not discussing the Flood, I'm discussing the geological claims. The flat strata are evident in the picture I posted. The supposed fluvial contents of the rock are the usual interpretations based on the rock, which I am not addressing. What I am addressing is that the whole Chinle Formation, which is dated to the Triassic period, appears to have been under water according to the pages on Paleogeography in the textbook I'm using. That's all I'm talking about. The members of the formation are not relevant at this point, their thickness or anything else about them, nor are the fluvial contents of the rocks. And I haven't accused anyone of lying, just somehow not having put together two separate geological studies that turn out to contradict each other as far as I can tell from the presentations in this book.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The soil is completely fictional. There is no evidence for it. The actual evidence is the flat straight contact lines between strata as seen in photo after photo after photo.

The nonsense is in your head. The map shows clearly where the states are in relation to the Rockies.The dinosaurs found in the fossil beds of the Chinle formation did not live under water, and that many volcanoes would surely make that locale unlivable for anything. Perhaps you'd like to move to a place that has a dozen active volcanoes. Yes the dinosaur beds are not in California. That's because there was no California during the time period we are discussing. The description of the Chinle formation does not mention California for that reason, only those six states that are clearly to the west of the Rockies according to that map. According to the paleogeographic maps that whole area was "deep ocean" no matter what you prefer to believe about it. According to the maps the entire area west of the Rockies was under deep ocean water throughout the entire Mesozoic era, through the Triassic, the Jurassic and the Cretaceous periods. East of the Rockies the epeiric seas transgressed and regressed but there was water present in the middle of the continent throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous. The source of this information is a respected textbook on historical geology.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, I realized I must be having a problem with my vision so I went where there is more light and studied the maps again. What I see now is that I couldn't see the outline of the continent at all in some places, particularly along the west coast. It didn't exist for me because I couldn't see the faint outline. I had kept trying to visualize where I thought the coast should be, but got it wrong. I had darkened some of the other faint lines where I could see them, along the shallow seas on the Jurassic and Cretaceous maps, for instance, and the east coast for instance, but the outline marking the west coast was completely invisible to me. So now where I could see it I marked it in darker ink, but there are still some areas that I can't see at all, though just short stretches here and there that shouldn't cause a problem.I also compared these maps to current maps so I could sketch in where the Rockies are today and the Colorado Plateau.SO, this changes my understanding of the maps.First of all the volcanoes are not along either the Rockies or the Sierras, but what would become the west coast itself, described in the text as an "island arc." They are surrounded by deep ocean on all these maps.Second, there are no mountains in the Triassic, though in the Jurassic and Cretaceous the area identified as mountains is in the region of the Sierras, not the Rockies, so I had that wrong.In the Triassic there is a band that runs along the edge of the ocean water, making up the coastline of that time period, that is not dry land but labeled "sandy and muddy bottom." This is west of the areas that became the Rockies and the Colorado Plateau, putting the majority of the dinosaur fossil beds such as in the Chinle Formation in the dry area east of the coastal muddy belt (although it looks like it's possible that belt might overlap some of the Chinle Formation in Nevada -- can't tell.) So in the Triassic it appears that the dinosaurs aren't threatened by either ocean water or the epeiric sea, and can roam freely on dry land, and I apologize for getting all this wrong. HOWEVER, on the Jurassic and Cretaceous maps the epeiric sea completely covers the land east of those mountains of the Sierra Nevada area all the way to the Great Lakes, so in these time periods it does appear that the dinosaurs have been deprived of livable land unless they lived in the mountain area of the Sierras which is the only area in the west that is above water. I've never heard of dinosaurs being described as living in mountains, but if you want to claim it there it is, only you have to move them off the Great Plains which are inundated by first the Sundance Sea and then the Cretaceous Inland Seaway, and you'll have to explain how we have so many nonaquatic dinosaur fossils buried in that part of the country that was under water for a great deal of the time.So, not in the Triassic, but in the Jurassic and Cretaceous it still looks to me like there is a big problem for dinosaurs.I look forward to the next episode of the Great Dinosaur Fossil Mystery.

Yes you are right, as I just posted, but there's more to it that you didn't mention.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I believe I HAVE addressed it, by identifying it as a fiction. If science embraces a fiction, as the historical sciences often do, I'm not going to address it as actuality but as the fiction it really is. Shouldn't you call it "sediment" rather than "soil?" Yes I believe it IS soil that has buried buildings and the many settlements that archaeologists have to deal with. But the strata are mostly sediments that become sedimentary rock. Yes that pretty much states the current theory. The OE theory has never been unclear, except that whenever I tried to describe it someone would tell me I got it wrong. I didn't but they said I did. Your scenario is a version of it. I disagree with the scenario of course. And where and when does the landscape develop in which the fossils in the rock supposedly lived?But the strata often have tight contacts between them and no loose soil at all between the layers, just to repeat that.

Yes you can claim the east as their retreat zone if you like but you still have the problem of explaining all the fossil beds in the area inundated by water for so much of the time period during which those fossil beds formed. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but dinosaur fossils are pretty rare in the eastern USA.And of course they would have had to have lived in those areas when it was land and not sea, but judging from the chart on p. 202 of the textbook being referenced, a chart of the "Cratonic Sequences of North America," it would have been sea most of the time in the Triassic and just about the entire period of the Jurassic. But I could be wrong about this since I find it hard to interpret the chart.

How could you know this from the information being discussed?And besides wouldn't we want to know when the dinosaurs had dry land to live on rather than when the fossil beds were formed? Seems to me "a lot of terrestrial dinosaurs distributed through marine geology" has been shown.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Probably many times. I don't always get to read every post and if it doesn't make sense to me right away the less likely it is that I'll read it but go on to one I can deal with more immediately. You for instance started talking about the Sundance Sea and the Sundance formation at a time when I couldn't see any reason for it. Sorry but the nature of this debate is that it's one against many and you may have to accept that I may not have read the stuff you think you've pointed out to me many times. There's no point in upbraiding me as you and some others do.However, isn't this an odd thing to say, that "the area wasn't inundated by water during the period when the fossil beds were formed," because these shallow seas are usually invoked to explain the deposition of a particular layer or formation, meaning the fossil beds.

The cartoon of the dinosaur peering out from the strata was meant to represent my own conclusion that there couldn't have been landscapes during any time period, that during the entire laying down of the entire geologic column the strata is all there ever was of any "landscape" (except where a layer got permanently exposed at the surface after all were laid down.)But it didn't convey that idea, instead conveying an idea of strata falling on the head of the dinosaur, so I removed it.The other cartoon showing flatness as far as the eye can see during the various time periods, in contrast with the surface of the earth as we know it now, still says what I want to say. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gosh, and here I thought you might be going to apologize for calling me dishonest. Fat chance.

Oh but I do know what Geology entails, a lot of imaginary stuff based on a few clues in a rock that is called a time period but is really just a slab of rock.