I'm waiting to hear how those brachiopods got to the tops of mountains with their stalks still attached to the sea floor or to other dead brachiopods, as well as many other things discussed here -- my first two posts in this thread have been almost completely ignored, yet they contain evidence that makes a global flood very unlikely indeed. So does the information about the scablands and the Grand Canyon in my previous post. My guess is that it will be ignored as well.
Your faith in your video is getting tedious to discuss; it seems that no matter what reality is, you will ignore it because presumably you can't deal with the notion that the information in it could be wrong or even deliberately misleading. This is the last time I intend to address it.
I said:
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?
You said:
Because the experiment provided a physical model that works.
Um, not sure what you're not seeing here.
The only place it works is
in your head. Wet sediment would just roll down a slope that extreme. Any simple experiment at home will show you this. For some clastics the slope need only be 5% for them to roll down. The verticality of the diagram you saw is
extremely exaggerated in order to give you the erroneous notion that what you would see is vertical facies with the false appearance of horizontality. If you continue to gainsay this then that's your choice but it is just plain wrong, as any book on geology would show you, and as my links here have shown you. Do you honestly care about the truth like you continually claim, or in reality do you ignore the truth when it's inconvenient for you? Rhetorical question.
You attempt to explain away polystrate trees is a joke. Why on Earth would you believe this.
I haven't "explained them away," I've
explained them. Geologists understand very well how they are formed. Like the video that you cling to here, you seem unwilling to drop the "polystrate trees are a problem" nonsense because creationists keep making that claim and they can't be wrong can they? You keep getting fed stuff about "uniformitarianism" when scientists know that catastrophic events occur and that some sediments can be deposited rapidly. Sediment is deposited relatively rapidly in the case of polystrate trees. Now what do you think that proves exactly? It does not
disprove that some sediments, such as varves and limestone, form very slowly. It's just a red herring.
Keep claiming that I'm wrong if that's what you feel you need to do. When (and if ever) you are ready to deal with other issues in this thread, I will be happy to respond.
