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?
Because the experiment provided a physical model that works.
Um, not sure what you're not seeing here.
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.
Strawman.
I'm not saying that scientists don't know what they're talking about.
I'm differentiating between hypothesis and observation.
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.
You attempt to explain away polystrate trees is a joke. Why on Earth would you believe this.
I guess if you believe that rocks and water self-assemble into highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual (different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems), self-reproducing machines, you would believe anything.
The claim you are holding on to is statistically impossible.
Do you not see this, aside from the personal bias?
Explains what layering? It's an erroneous model of a marine transgression with exaggerated verticality.
It is a physical model that works. It works. It's demonstrated before your eyes.
