I'm going to reply to the post above, and then I'm going to paste two posts from Russ that were put in a different thread, and respond to them here, because they are about the alleged global flood.



You seem to be telling me that because there was a global flood (your presupposition), then there should be a global sedimentary layer showing deposition the way your video shows it, which is not the way it happens in the real world: You are still looking at horizontally-deposited layers, with coarser material closer to the shore and finer material further out; go inland a little beyond the coarse particles and you might even find sand dunes and hills or mountains. That's just a coastal environment where there is wave action and marine transgression or regression; there are records of other kinds of environments in the geologic column. In a post below, I will give examples of rock types that form slowly or not in water at all. How do you get those in a global flood? How do you get varves? How . . . well, there are a lot of questions I've asked here that have just been ignored, which we will perhaps return to later.

One more note on Walther's Law. I found this diagram of a marine transgression, which is a better illustration of what is happening. You can see from this that in a vertical section, the oldest layers are at the bottom and the youngest at the top, as we would expect, with the deposition material changing as you go further out to sea or closer to the coast. The layers overlap each other because in a transgression, the water level gradually rises, so the deposition sequence moves in the direction of the coast. However, the verticality of the diagrams I've linked to, and the “Drama in the Rocks” video, is greatly exaggerated. (This is often the case in order for a principle to be illustrated, though it is common practice to say so and give the real scale). A more realistic example of the slope of the contacts would be akin to the land slope of going from New Orleans, LA (0 feet) to Minneapolis, MN (830 feet, or 1/7 mile) -– a horizontal distance of 1,299 miles, but still a substantial change in elevation. If the diagram were drawn to true scale, you're looking at a vertical rise of about 1/4500th of that shown in the diagram. Some slopes are a little steeper, but at about 10 degrees or higher, the particles will roll down the slope without being deposited on it (such a “steep” slope is called a bypass slope).



You've got yourself convinced that:
a) Geologists are unaware of Walther's law or they are conspiring to hide it from the public, which is belied by the fact that I've given evidence here to the contrary and the internet is full of same;
b) Even minor adjustments have never been made to the geologic column as new evidence has come to light – never once in the past 100 years has this happened;
c) Somehow, absolute dating methods don't correlate with the relationships geologists found in rock layers when all they had were relative dating methods – even though this is historical fact and you've provided zero evidence for your own contrary notion.




That is not an answer to my question. You strategy here seems to be, more or less, “avoid everything.” For example, “I can't explain how radiometric dating is flawed so I'm just going to claim it's lies or ignore it.” Do you think this is a logical or scientific approach to dealing with evidence?

For more information on how relationships in the geologic column were and are established, by relative means such as Steno's Laws and absolute methods such radiometric dating (and how they correlate), see Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?