Blimey, talk about banging one's head against a brick wall. I have provided link after link, and several diagrams, showing you how layers are really deposited in a marine transgression. Yet you ignore them and continue to insist that your video proves everything you want it to prove. What it proves is that you will cling most strongly to something that says what you want it to say, regardless of its basis in reality. In a marine transgression, the law of original horizontality still holds, which the most recent diagram I posted here shows quite clearly -- but I think you probably didn't look at it.

Let's take this from another angle then. You seem to think that the entire geologic column should be made up of marine transgressions because somehow you believe that this shows waters settling after a flood, am I correct? The geologic column is full from top to bottom of the following phenomena: aeolian (wind-deposited) formations; paleosols; mud cracks (formed during evaporation); evaporite rocks; burrows of small animals; stromatolites; corprolites; rock that forms slowly such as shale, limestone, blueschist and other metamorphic rock. These are just a few curious phenomena that make a global flood rather unlikely. Now maybe you can tell us how a marine transgression explains the presence of all of those things in the geologic column.



There are layers showing mature marine environments, including burrows again and layer upon layer of brachiopods (creatures like clams attached by stalks to the sea floor), interspersed with the kinds of layers described above, within mountains. How does a global flood explain that? How does a flood detach an intact marine environment with brachiopods, still attached to the sea floor, along with other kinds of rock layers above and below, including igneous and metamorphic, and make a mountain out of them all, or plonk them down on top of a hill?



In areas where water recedes, you'd see the particles sorted hydrologically. Unfortunately this is not what is observed in much of the geologic column. To look again at the phanerozoic layers in the Williston Basin in North Dakota, you have (from bottom to top):

-- sandstone full of trilobites and the burrows of a marine worm (scolithus);
-- shale, whose very fine particles only settle out in tranquil water;
-- more sandstone, similar to the first layer and most probably formed by erosion of the first layer;
-- more shale;
-- limestone and dolomite (metamorphic rock);
-- a layer of carbonates, anhydrites (a type of evaporite), salt and sand.

This only takes us part of the way through the Devonian; there are many more kinds of rocks above. How do these fit with your flood model? Why do we have marine worms making burrows with delicate winnowing during a period of turbulent waters? And the biggest question for me: why do we only see the fossils of small organisms of the kind we would expect to see layered in the fossil record at this time? If there was a global flood, why do we not see the fossils of organisms killed during the flood, mixed with each other anywhere? Why are there no fossils of people or elephants or dinosaurs anywhere in these layers? In your scenario of hydrological sorting, shouldn't the heaviest animals sink to the bottom more quickly?



Your incessant denial of reality is getting tiresome, and the use of the word "we" here is curious, since if you really went out "in the field" yourself with some basic knowledge of what you were doing, you would see why these claims you are making are nonsense.



Fossils are consistently layered everywhere with the oldest at the bottom and the youngest at the top. You have not presented one iota of evidence that this is not the case anywhere in the world.