When the flood occurred, it carried away some layers while leaving others. It also rapidly formed some structures, such as the red cliff structures in the western U.S.
Some layers that didn't get washed away indeed took long periods of time to form, and as an old-Earth Creationist, I have no problem with this.
So it sounds like you're saying that you're OK with rock layers taking millions of years to form. A problem for your personal scenario is that limestone is formed from the carbonate shells of gazillions of microfossils and it also takes a very long time to form -- not 6,000 years. CTD also neglects this point while he focuses on the red herring of how long it takes oil to form.
From
Post 52364, another piece of evidence that has gone ignored here which supports Point 1 about the amount of biomass in the earth:
Limestone is composed of the skeletons of micro-organisms which live in the top 10 meters or so of shallow seas. When these tiny creatures die their calcium rich skeletons sink to the sea floor, and over long periods of time the depths of limestone accumulation can become substantial. The limestone layers of the White Cliffs of Dover are 200 to 300 meters thick and are thought to have accumulated over a period of around 10 million years. A flood scenario that would have laid down the limestone layers in less than a single year just a few thousand years ago a problem. It's also a bit of a puzzle as to how there are different layers above and below it in the same supposed flood deposit.
Even if you say that all the limestone in the world formed in 6,000 years and not just during the flood, you've got a problem because there are trillions of tons of it.
A couple more problems with Russ' quote above. Which "red cliff structures" are you referring to as having been carved by a global flood? And also, it looks to me like you have not had a look at any of the evidence from the thread discussing the Grand Canyon and the Channeled Scablands, which I've linked to twice. There are structures in the Grand Canyon that could not have been formed by a flood, and some that would actually have been washed away by one. Yet the scablands were carved by glacial floods about 12,000 years ago; they are very striking features and cover 1/3 of Washington state. Just some of the features there include dry falls, wide rectangle-shaped canyons, enormous ripple marks and braiding patterns, dropstones in layers of silt (some weighing many tons), and the loess having been scoured off in several places to reveal the bare basalt base (hence the name "scablands" -- not good for farming). There was a lot of water flooding a wide area but compared to a global flood it's puny.
So why do we have the scablands from floods that were smaller and happened thousands of years before the alleged global flood, but no evidence for the latter anywhere in the geologic record?
