I'm fine with the idea that plate tectonics, volcanic activity and other processes replace the land while erosion removes it.
I'm pointing out that this destroys the idea that the land under our feet is somehow representative of the distant past, in nice, neat layers.
It's like discerning the order in which you wore your clothes by the order in which they came out of the washing machine.
As to your question, it depends; is he right?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: