Summations Only

It is pretty much irrelevant what you believe, you need to provide the model, mechanism, process, procedure. thingamabob that would explain how that bees possible.

If I missed your post please provide a link to the particular message and I will gladly acknowledge it.But so far in over a decade that has never yet happened.

One of the problems is that Faith edits material into her posts, often after someone responds but does not indicate which edits relate to the time edited. For example the paragraph you quoted is one I suspect (judging from the time stamps of her edits) was made after I had posted the next post in succession relating to the Law of Superposition.Unfortunately no one knows that she significantly changed the content of the post already replied to.When something significant and relevant like that paragraph is added it is probably best to make it a new post and maybe even a reply to those who had already replied.This is important because later she admonishes me for not acknowledging that she had addressed my Steno remark and I imagine she is referring to the paragraph you quote. And yes, until I saw it in your most recent post I had missed that and also yes, that is a pretty good summary of the conventional theory. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title.Edited by jar, : hide text

Faith, please look at Message 662 for a response related to the paragraph you added.The hidden content is reproduced here.Let me then start again. That's almost it with a few minor additions. But in addition to landscape getting buried and new landscape being deposited on top of it there are a few more things going on. There is existing landscape not getting buried beside the part getting buried and already buried landscapes that have already turned to rock being exposed by being raised and the overlying soil eroded away.The new landscapes may be similar but most often will be different and a great example is North America.Look at this map (remember it is just a snap shot) of North America during the Pennsylvanian Period. Note where there are hills, mountains, shallow seas, deep seas, swamps.Now move forward to the Cretaceous Period and see how the landscapes have changed locations. The move way forward to almost today and again, the landscapes have changed yet again. Landscapes change over time, where there were seas there are now plains but the old landscape, the shallow sea floor is still under there but now covered by aeolian surfaces.Edited by jar, : add hidden content from other message after Admin's request to not reply to his message.

Try the maps available at The Paleogeography and Geologic Evolution of North America that are in color and so may be easier on your eyes. There you can track the changes in landscape of what would become North America over a 500 million year history.AbE: What any of us believe is irrelevant. Beliefs are fine in the Faith & Beliefs areas but in Science areas all that counts is the evidence and the processes, procedures, models, methods and theories that explain the evidence that exists.No one is slighting your beliefs. All beliefs are irrelevant.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Well we know for a fact that it happened so it is not impossible. But again, they seldom end up flat or straight.A good example is the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon. There about a billion years of material is simply missing. We can get an idea of what should be there by looking at other columns but what really was there is truly missing. That particular area saw far greater erosion and weathering than other areas at the same time.The reality is that some areas get pushed up and where that happens a layer gets worn away while other parts of the same layer remain.What may look as flat and straight sections when seen from a distance turn out to be far from flat or straight when examined in detail. Time. Not necessarily greater depth of material but longer periods of time. The process is continuous and simply goes on day after day but over really long periods of time.

I always look at some examples we see today. As sea levels rise coastal areas change from shore to sea. The Appalachians are a multi period landscape with the soil representing this period while the bedrock is a period both today and from almost 500 million years ago. Where glaciers are retreating we see a changing landscape. Many of our fossil finds are where older material gets blown away and reveals a landscape from long ago as it exists today. Where the Sahara is expanding the landscape is changing from forest and farm land to desert.

Actually it's not what the illustrations usually say and all that I've ever seen said pretty clearly that they were artists illustrations.What they do illustrate, and this is really important, is not the geology of any period but rather the landscape, the environment, the types of biological critters that were common at that time. They do not show mudstone or shale or sandstone or limestone or granite but rather shallow seas and plains and forests and marshes and mountains and hills and volcanoes and grass and palms and critters; in other words, Landscapes.I don't see anyway anyone could honestly say the drawings (other than the maps and specifically identified geological drawings) could think for a second that they were meant to depict the geology of any time period.Even you acknowledge that the prominent feature is a selected collection of living things as supposedly found during a time period. Sometimes those displays also included actual fossils, drawings of typical fossils or casts of such fossils and the emphasis was always on the landscape, the biology, the environment and not rocks. They provide additional and conclusive evidence of what the artist is trying to depict.As mentioned many times in this thread the geology and the processes that create the different materials remain pretty constant and repetitive over the billions of years of the Earth's history while the biological samples varied and in an ordered fashion.AbE:Another point is that when a time period like Carboniferous (Mississippian/Pennsylvanian) or Jurassic or Triassic or Cretaceous is mentioned a fairly long period of time is covered and during each period things including the biological samples will evolve and change. The Pennsylvanian period as an example covers 60 Million years while the Cretaceous covers almost 80 million years. Any illustration will be as representative as a drawing of the Alamo as it existed in 1836 compared to the tourist attraction just off the River Walk of today. Landscapes will change over time and a great example is the North American Inland sea that came and went in less than half of the Cretaceous Period.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

If so I apologize but I believe I quoted what you did say. If I did not understand what is quoted then please help us to understand whatever point you are trying to make. Try rephrasing it to help us understand your position.Are you agreeing with me about what the illustrations show?

Okay, so are we in agreement then that what we see is a succession of landscapes over time?

See, that is where so much confusion is created. What do you mean by "Yes. Meaning that's what Geology says is seen in the strata."?Yes I can understand but then you add " Meaning that's what Geology says is seen in the strata."Geology doesn't say anything. Geology is a branch of science.The conventional theories explain the facts that are seen. Geological processes remain relatively constant over time. The Biological samples though do not remain constant over time but rather evolve in an ordered fashion, grasses only show up in layers later than the first flowers and vertebrates only show up in layers later than the invertebrates; land animals in layers later than the first sea life.It is not geology that sees the material makeup and layering or the biological samples and where they are found; those are simply facts. The issue is "How can what is seen be explained?"The conventional theories adequately explain what is seen. A leaf imprint only exists if a landscape that supported the tree existed at the time the leaf grew on the surface. The dinosaur tracks could only exist where the dinosaur wandered across a surface landscape.What other explanation is there for what is seen?

If you want to use the Grand Canyon as an example, there is a thread Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. where we began at the bottom and tried to work our way up. It may well help answer your questions. We only got as high as the bottom of the Sixty Mile Formation but at least it does cover how the layers below the Sixty Mile Formation were formed.The processes to explain those layers above the Sixty Mile formation would be the same processes found that formed the layers below the Sixty Mile Formation.There is also the thread How to make sand. that gets into some greater detail on the processes themselves.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title assembled ----> formed

First a few specifics.In the first picture the emphasis is not on the layers but rather the talus (scree) which are the piles of weathered material seen at the base. There is no information given on what the make-up of the individual layers are so I can only guess at the composition but shale, mudstone, limestone and sand stone seem indicated. But note the actual variations between the different processes that formed each layer.So where would those types of materials form?The Chenile Formation is more interesting since it is a great example of a continental formation. The make-up of the processes there also vary over time and show landscapes ranging from erosive water born deposits to lakes to wetlands and also some wind born deposits like sand dunes.AbE:What is important is that both examples (as well as all the other examples) show a succession of changing landscapes over time with each process forming a layer of material that is indicative and unique to the processes involved.Edited by jar, : see AbE:Edited by jar, : applin spallin so ----> show

Great question and the answer is that there are likely other folks than you who have a hard time understanding reality but for most of us there is no problem at all.AbE:The key is that many examples simply are not smooth flat level transitions. The Appalachians is a great example. Right now material is being deposited on slopes, up and down, still far from level but at the same time we know that the high points are being worn and weathered away and that material is being deposited in the valleys and given enough time the final result would be a relatively flat surface.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

There is no and hopefully never will be any official answer. Such things are the province of dogma and mythology. Correct. The process and environment determine the material. It could or it could represent a shorter period like a season or year. Such things will depend on the characteristics of the specific sample.