Repeating part of my previous message:
Minnemooseus, in message 219 writes:
Faith, in message 216 writes:
The evidence doesn't show repeated local floods at all, the strata are way too consistent for that, as are the fossils.
A short argument, without getting into the countless other details outside of your one, one year flood model -
The evidence DOES show repeated major sea transgressions and regressions, none which covered all the land surface, at least (maybe) way back in the pre-Cambrian.
Faith, replying to message 219 in message 224 writes:
The evidence is no doubt some completely circumstantial facts that are imaginatively but falsely interpreted into seas.
The evidence of major sea transgressions and regressions are the vast areas of (pretty) consistent strata that is your primary evidence for your own "great flood". Let's call these major sea transgressions and regressions the "pretty big floods (but not the great flood)". And you can find multiple incidences of strata resulting from individual "pretty big floods", one above the other, quite possibly with other non-marine sediments etc. in between the "pretty big flood" events.
AT THIS POINT I WAS GOING TO PUT IN THAT WONDERFUL WALTHER'S LAW GRAPHIC, BUT IT HAS BEEN LOST TO THE DEMISE OF FREE PHOTOBUCKET.
If you can remember that Walther's Law graphic's stratigraphy, imagine having multiples of that diagram's stratigraphy stacked on top of each other. That is a diagrammatic representation of what is actually found in the geologic strata.
Critiques by other real geologists also most welcome.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Tiny tweak.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Another tiny tweak.