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.
No you haven't.
What you have actually provided is an interpretation of evidence. Unfortunately, as this video clearly demonstrates even using physical models, is that your interpretation is outdated and based on inaccurate information.
I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on this, but clearly, my model is much more logical. Your model is full of contradictions, such as those related to transstrata trees.
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.
Um, this supports my position. They are distributed there by cracks in the rock during very high water (flood).
The sedimentation model I have provided you with explains the layering, and again I will say, this model (the most recent one by your own admission) does not date fossils according to depth, which is implied by your use of the word "within".
Depth-dating is outdated.
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?
(1) Transplantation
(2) Volcanic activity
(3) You also have to consider growth rates. How long does it actually take for these to grow?
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):
The key word here is "much".
Let's be accurate and change that to "some".
Now we see that there is more chaos in the sedimentation than we would like, but again, this is easily explained by washing away of some areas and sedimentation of other areas.
Science likes to put things into pretty boxes, but your model does not fit. There are loose edges that they don't like to talk about. Nevertheless, we have deal with them if we are going to have integrity.
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?
Again, it depends on the location.
You would expect to see this in SOME areas, like we do.
Sedimentation is complex and affected by many thing. Sometimes it will act as expected. Other times, erosion and washing away will removes something we would expect to find (flooding), while at other times we may expect to find trans-strata trees.
There are no great mysteries here, it's just that this process is sufficiently complicated as to be misinterpreted by those with a bias.
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?
Not necessarily. Nevertheless, if my memory serves me correctly, there are. Either way, we cannot draw hard conclusions on these facts alone. Again, it is a complex process that has the potential to cause all kinds of phenomenon.
We have to look at clusters of animals and organisms based on habitat, erosive flows, volcanic/mountainous upheavals, transportation of specimens, and more.
In a diluvian model, you would expect much complex chaos caused by local conditions and events that occur often during only short periods of time. These short periods of time would make locating evidence of the event hard, especially when long periods of have passed, which then cause scientists to draw mistaken thoughts or ideas.
We see all kinds of things out there, and this is what I expect to find. The difference is that I am willing to talk about the hard cases while evolutionists attempt to quickly explain them away, and those explanation often turn out poorly.
Such an example is trans-strata fossils.
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.
Is this still Linda that I'm debating with?
What about the video that I keep posting do you not understand?
http://urlbam.com/ha/M002C"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "
—David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
