Summations Only

I'm sorry, I find all this stuff about Walther's Law to completely miss the point of the discussion with Stile, it's nothing but confusion and obfuscation and I have to ignore it if the discussion is to proceed. If that's suspension-worthy so be it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nothing is 'getting confused'. It's been confused from the beginning and we have over 1100 posts to prove it. Okay. The reason that I brought it up was because I though you were having a problem with active sedimentary environments existing beside each other and one of them also overlying the other. If you are restricting the conversation to the first layer laid down by rising sea level, I see you point because the underlying 'layer' (the bedrock forming the land surface) is actually older and not the same age.That would be describing an unconformity, which would take us out on another tangent which has proven fruitless before. Of course you haven't. That's what cross-sections do.However, your statement isn't exactly true either because I have shown you strat columns with schematicized channels cut in older rocks and occupied by younger rocks. The Temple Butte Sandstone would be an example. If we are talking about why a limestone-over-siltstone-over-sandstone sequence exists, then you are wrong.I thought that, in your example with Stile, you were talking about successive layers of sediment. I consider this post to have done so.

Personally, I'm willing to let it go. The problem is that I'm trying to find ways to help you understand how geologists think and why their conclusions make sense.Obviously, we have all failed at understanding your position. But it's not for failing to try.Some people seem to think that doing geology is easy. But I think that Pressie would agree that it takes a long time in the field and in the data to really become competent. And if someone does not want to learn something, it is truly 'impossible'.I wish that Petro was here to help. But then, he's still way ahead of me on these types of rocks, so that might not work.

Yes. By "the upper sediment of landscape #1" I think you mean the same sediment surrounding our chunk of lead, right? The point that is 80 feet deep now.And yes, your gathering is correct. This is still "not rock" at this point (under 80 feet of sediment, 100 000 years), it's 5% of it's way along becoming rock. With the ocean coming in as I've described in this example, this issue may or may not become clear to you.
This example isn't formulated to show you how the "extensive straight flat surface at the contact between the strata" can form.
This example is only meant to show how 1 layer of rock can be created from a landscape without the surface being destroyed. For the purposes of keeping this example simple, we are not considering the previous sediment/rock or "other sediments" outside the scenario. But yes, you are correct. My example does have marine sediment depositing directly beside terrestrial sediment at the "beach line." But I assure you that the layers will form as the example goes on.Here's an explanation of my simplification and why I'm doing so:One is marine sediment (anything under the ocean).
The other is terrestrial sediment (anything not under the ocean).You are absolutely correct that I am creating a "distinct and abrupt" difference between marine and terrestrial sediment.
You would be correct in thinking that the two are not as sharply defined and separated "at the beach" as I'm talking about in my example.
But, my example is "an example" it's supposed to be simplified in order to explain how geologists see things. We can get into specifics later. For now, I hope you understand that "marine sediment" deposited out in the middle of the ocean is different and distinct from "terrestrial sediment" that would be deposited in the middle of a land mass.
This example is taking these two extreme differences and layering them right on top of each other in order to simplify things for the example.The purpose of having this "crisp" difference is so that I can move this example along in the timeline I've picked (2 million years).
If I was going to move things along at a pace more likely to be seen with the usual "incoming of an ocean" with layers... the timeline would have to be adjusted much further out... into the 100s of millions of years. Which would make our constant-rate of accumulation sort of strange for that entire time. I thought the best way to keep the example going would be to simplify the 2 different sediments.So I hope this is acceptable for the moment.If you can accept that I have "marine sediment" being deposited at any location under-the-ocean and "terrestrial sediment" being deposited at any location not-under-the-ocean, we can continue. It wouldn't stop. Not abruptly, anyway. But it wouldn't continue across the entire ocean.
Oceans have currents. Terrestrial land does not.
As Terrestrial sediment lands in the ocean some is carried away from the area by the currents.
Other sediment (from other parts of the ocean) is carried in by the same currents.
The result is that when "the sediment" reaches the bottom of the ocean floor and is deposited (no longer to move away in my example) it is a mixture of terrestrial sediment that's accumulating in the area as well as ocean sediment carried in from other currents.I'm calling this mixture "marine sediment" as it is different from pure "terrestrial sediment."
I'm also assuming that the rate of deposition for the final marine sediment is exactly the same as that of the terrestrial sediment. This is hardly ever the case, but doing otherwise would add an unnecessary complication to my simplified example. We can assume that the ocean currents just happen to add "ocean sediment" to the area in the exact amount that the same currents carry some of the terrestrial sediment away when creating the final marine sediment mixture.If you're able to accept "marine sediment" and "terrestrial sediment," then the following is an explanation of the layering as the ocean moves inland over the next 50 000 years up to a total of 100 000 years into my example. I'm not forming them side by side.
I'm forming them in layers. One on top of the other.Perhaps it may be easier if you drew yourself two pictures. One at 50 000 years and another at 100 000 years. I'll explain the two different times here:First, let's look at things back at 50 000 years again.Our chunk of lead is 40 feet below the terrestrial sediment, close to the beach, but on land.
We will mark this as "Location Lead" because it's where our chunk of lead is. Location Lead is very close to the beach. (Where the ocean begins before it starts moving inland).
25 miles inland, we have "Location B." This location (at 50 000 years) is 25 miles away from the beach and under 40 feet of terrestrial sediment.
50 miles inland, we have "Location C." This location (at 50 000 years) is 50 miles away from the beach and under 40 feet of terrestrial sediment.
100 miles inland, we have "Location D." This location (at 50 000 years) is 100 miles away from the beach and under 40 feet of terrestrial sediment.Now we'll move to 100 000 years, after the ocean has moved in 50 miles.Location Lead - Our chunk of lead is under 80 feet of sediment, and the ocean. It's now 50 miles from the beach, under the ocean.
The sediment at this point is 40 feet of terrestrial (directly above the chunk of lead) with 40 feet of marine-sediment above it.Location B - Also under the ocean now. 25 miles from the beach, under the ocean. It also has 80 feet of sediment, and the ocean.
The sediment at this point is 60 feet of terrestrial (it was accumulating terrestrial sediment as the ocean moved towards it).
And 20 feet of marine (after the ocean past over it, it began accumulating marine sediment).Location C - This is where the beach is now. It also has 80 feet of sediment, but no ocean over it. All 80 feet of sediment is terrestrial sediment.Location D - This location is now only 50 miles away from the beach. It also has 80 feet of sediment, but no ocean over it. All 80 feet of sediment is terrestrial sediment.As the ocean moved inland, over 100 000 years... it created a slope in the difference between the layers.
None of the layers are rock. They are all sediment on-the-way-to-becoming rock (at this point in time).
If the ocean is over a location for longer (Location Lead), it will have more marine sediment.
If the ocean is over a location for shorter (Location B), it will have less marine sediment.
If the ocean never reached a location (Locations C and D) they will have no marine sediment.But with the same rates of deposition, all areas have the same total amount of "sediment" - 80 feet.Is this understandable? No. Not beside it. On top of it. I should have said "the sediment currently depositing above our chunk of lead is now marine sediment." That would have been clearer.Chunk of lead on the bottom (80 feet deep).
Then 40 feet of terrestrial sediment that came from the first 50 000 years.
Then 40 feet of marine sediment that came from the next 50 000 years to bring us up to 100 000 years.
Then the ocean on top of that. Whoops. That's another mistake of mine.
I should not have called it "rock." It's only 5% of the way to becoming rock.
I should have said "-the terrestrial sediment around our chunk of lead that will one day become rock is now 80-feet deep" Yes.The "marine sediment" above our chunk of lead at 40 feet deep is only 2.5% along it's way to becoming rock.
The marine sediment above our chunk of lead at 20 feet deep is only 1.25% along it's way to becoming rock. We have our chunk of lead, then 40 feet of terrestrial sediment above it, then 40 feet of marine sediment above that, then the ocean on top.Fish are living, dying, having offspring in the ocean, still living happily.
Land-creatures are living, dying, having offspring over by Location C and Location D, still living happily.Both environments-at-the-surface have habitats that are being maintained, or abandoned, or created as the fish and land-creatures see fit.

I completely and utterly object to this. We don't get 'chunks' of lead. We do find lead containing minerals.My favourite is Galena. It's absolutely beautiful. And heavy, too. It's lead grey, it has a metallic lustre and a grey streak; it's opaque in thin section and is white in polished section. It's space group is Fm3m. It' gets decomposed by sulpheric acid.Galena also is one of the most abundant and widely distributed sulfide minerals. It crystallizes in the cubic crystal system often showing octahedral forms. It is often associated with the minerals sphalerite, calcite and fluorite. I't cleavage is [001] perfect and [111] parting. It's twinning shows penetration and contact twinning on {111}, with lamellar and deformation twins on other plains.I tend to love lead-containing minerals.Sorry, I responded to the wrong message!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hi Stile:I do intend to get back to this; just needed a break.

I think we all know that this is unrealistic. Even Faith, I'm sure. Wulfenite!

It isn't easy being orange...

Pressie doesn't seem to ever bother to read earlier posts to find out what anything means that he just happens to run across. The chunk of lead was a device Stile came up with to solve a problem I was objecting to about fossils. See Message 996Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understand your objections.
I'm not going to do anything about it.Take that!

I was just wondering what Faith thinks of all the flat strata on Mars, and the erosion. On Earth, as we know, these were caused by God flooding the planet. But did he also flood Mars? If so, does that imply that there was something living there that he wanted to kill, or did he just have some spare water left over from flooding the Earth and think "Hey, fucking with future geologists is basically my hobby, let's give Mars some fake geology too!"

Indeed. And we also see great flat sheets of calcareous ooze being laid down on the sea floor today, so we know exactly what kind of deposition accounts for this sort of sediment.

Some creationists believe the solar system was involved in the Flood scenario in various ways; for instance meteor impacts are considered to have been part of the Flood period on earth, and throughout the solar system as well, accounting for all those craters on the moon and other planets.The strata on Mars don't look much like those on Earth, however.

How things occur today isn't a very reliable clue to how they occurred in the past, during the Flood, or before the Flood.

Do you believe you could identify the planet of origin, if shown a photograph of strata on Earth or Mars?