The first question has to be, if you believe in the literalness of the diagrams you saw, why do you not understand that the particles would simply roll down the slope?

The second question is, when the internet is full of illustrations of marine transgressions and Walther's Law, do you insist that your pet video is correct? Oh that's right – it must be because the scientists don't know what they're on about, or they're liars. The fact that they've physically studied the evidence and you haven't doesn't come into it of course.

The third question is, why you believe the basic premise here, which is false. You seem to be ascribing various “proofs” to the video when all it's trying to say is that the fossil order in a marine transgression doesn't follow the law of faunal succession. As I've said several times, if early geologists using Steno's Laws and other methods of relative dating had been wrong, then modern dating methods would have shown this to be the case. If you think that there is a giant conspiracy and dating methods don't work, you need to show this. It would of course be difficult for you to do because they do and this has been demonstrated many times over.



This is just getting funny now. I've explained to you twice in the Geologic Column thread why polystrate trees are not a problem for geology, evolution, etc. Your method of ignoring my posts and continuing to repeat the same falsehoods is not going to add any veracity to your position, apart from in your head perhaps.

I said,


You said,


I'm struggling to make sense of this comment. Perhaps you didn't read my above sentences very closely. We see layers of mature marine environments, WITHIN mountains. How do layers of brachiopods or corals grow on the sea floor when “they are distributed there by cracks in the rock during very high water”?

There are a number of ways that scientists can tell that brachiopods have been growing in place. One of the more obvious is to find the fossilised pedicle, or stalk which attaches it to the seafloor (or on top of the shells of other dead brachiopods). This is a rare find but the pedicle can clearly be seen in well-preserved fossils, often in Konzentrat-Lagerstätten. Strangely, some of these are in mountainous areas. The question for you to answer is how this kind of assemblage falls through cracks in rocks and continues to grow. 20-year-old brachiopods are not uncommon in these fossils; that's a bit of a long time for them to be growing in a crack in a rock during the global flood. There's also the obvious question of how they would get food and sunlight in there. There's also the question of how transplanted marine creatures were burrowing in soft mud there. Please face the facts Russ: this didn't happen.



Explains what layering? It's an erroneous model of a marine transgression with exaggerated verticality. Let's try this yet another way. Have a look here. This is the site with the first diagram I linked you to. Scroll down to where it says “Facies” and look at the diagram of a normal marine environment. You can see the depositional order from the shore out to sea: sand, shale, carbonate. The law of horizontal deposition obviously applies here; you are just looking at different kinds of deposits in different areas. A marine transgression is no different from this apart from the fact that the layers will be slanted toward the shore as the water rises. This takes a long time by the way. If you scroll further down you will find information and diagrams for transgressions and regressions. Now it's your choice to again ignore this – perhaps you're not even reading it – but you will just make yourself look silly if you continue to claim that your video somehow explains everything. It is not representing reality to you, and IMO this is quite deliberate.

I said,


Which I've discussed again above, but your reply is rather astounding:


OK . . .
1) How do you “transplant” large horizontal layers of brachiopods with their stalks intact without evoking something magical?
2) How does volcanic activity accomplish this? I am truly puzzled here.
3) Brachiopods can live 20-30 years and as stated above, they have been found with stalks intact. This is just one type of organism. Corals are a problem for your model as well.



What do you mean, “act as expected”? The only sedimentation you seem to expect is a global transgressive layer, which does not exist. Below this you presumably expect there to be a flood layer. And why should erosion or rapid deposition fool geologists somehow, if that is what you are suggesting?

The fact of your ignorance of geologic processes is not your fault. What I find questionable is that you talk like you know what you're on about and rubbish a large body of scientific evidence in the process. Let's look at some different ways that sediment can be deposited, other than in a shallow coastal area or in a flood.

Deep water, which includes laminae (a type of which is varves). Notice that the deposition processes and materials are very different from those in your beloved video.

Aeolian deposits are deposited by wind, not water. An example is the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon.

Riverbanks and meanders.

Glacial till.

Paleosols.

Note that none of these deposits can occur during a flood, and the geologic record contains them in many places. By this point in the discussion many people would rest their case and tell you that you need to open a basic geology book. Me, I have time on my hands at the moment and don't mind explaining these things so that they should be obvious.

I said,


You said,


Yet you have never provided any evidence to this effect. How do people here know you're not making it up?



What's complex about it? In a flood that should have killed off virtually every living thing on earth, we should find a few fossils mixed together somewhere. Yet this has never been found. Considering the fact that such a find would invalidate the law of faunal succession, it seems strange that creationists don't seem to have any evidence to offer.



Scientists already do these things. They haven't found any evidence that violates the law of faunal succession. Maybe you can explain what you yourself would be looking for.



We'll bypass this notion that if a lot of time has passed, scientists (bless) can get boggled. Let's move on to evidence that shows us that there was or wasn't a flood in an area. Believe it or not, evidence for a flood is not that hard to spot. There was a thread here a while back which you can't be expected to know about because you did not participate in it, though you posted the OP: Is the Grand Canyon Proof of Noah's Flood? In it you will find:

Post 35985, 37617, 37689
The Channeled Scablands in Washington state show evidence of multiple catastrophic floods.

While no evidence is found in the Grand Canyon for catastrophic flooding:

35986, 37327, 37673
Brachiopods, and fossils found in faunal succession

37390
Absence of oxbow lakes

37726
(toward bottom of post) Ripple marks, footprints and paleosols

37735
U-Pb dating shows rate of erosion too slow for a flood

37749
Principle of faunal succession demonstrated layer after layer

38224
Coconino Sandstone is an aeolian deposit containing spider and scorpion tracks

So we can see from this that scientists can tell where there has been catastrophic flooding (the Channeled Scablands) and that it didn't happen in the Grand Canyon. This would be evidence for localised but not global flooding. And your evidence to the contrary, Russ, is . . . ?