Long build up of Sediments

My geology is a little poor, I see this as opportunity. I would be happy if someone would take 'baby steps' with me through some of the finer points of this topic.To kick start that off a few thoughts and questions. Faith raises an interesting criticism/observation that I thought was very good in that it made me think. When we look into the fossils we find marine fossils in areas that are now very much not marine landscapes. Faith sees this as a confirmation of the Flood hypothesis.What Faith's idea assumes is that the landscapes we see now are the same as they have always been (give or take tectonic shifting and general erosion etc). That is to say that if we find marine fossils in a desert then instead of the area once being under sea, it is evidence of a flood being there.So the question is, other than the fossils is there any evidence in the sedimentation type to suggest that the area was marine? Can we tell anything else about the marine environment from the sediment, such as salinity of the water? Is there some way to determine (aside from techniques like radiodating) how long the area was underwater? Finally, rox mentioned that 80% of the column is carbonate, which is problematic for flood theories since deposition is universally gradual. Are there any recommended sites out there that discuss this carbonate deposition rate and how it works?Probably too many questions there, and I could google some of them, but I thought informed answers in this thread might be useful for the community, hence why I'm posting. Once I get a bit more information, I'll be googling away to learn more, so that perhaps I might develop more questions and better understanding of this subject.

I realize what I said sounded more extreme than your actual beliefs, to qualify a little: What I mean t say is that it seems you were saying that a desert of today has always been above ground (assuming there is only one layer of marine fossils) so the marine fossils got there by way of the flood.

This seems to be one of the major issues that you bring up. It's a good point, and it should be addressed fully.from wiki:

quote:

---

Deposition, also known as sedimentation, is the geological process whereby material is added to a landform. This is the process by which wind, water, or ice create a sediment deposit through the laying down of granular material that has been eroded and transported from another geographical location.

---

Sediment doesn't immediately harden and become rock, it remains loose, compressing the layers beneath it, which to simplify things seems to result in a layer of sedimentary rock. The rate at which this sediment increases is slow, and it moves around. Fossilization of soft bodied creatures occurs when some of this sediment is moving somewhat rapidly (example a mud flow, or the creature dies and sinks to the bottom of a river (where we know sediment is moving rapidly)).My understanding then is that sediments move rapidly in a short period of time, cover an animal and then settle and gradually get more and more buried under more sediments. I'd imagine this is the kind of thing that might happen at river bends where sand banks form. Eventually the river would stop depositing sediments in that area (rivers change course), and another form of sedimentation might occur. If I am understanding this correctly, it would mean that there would be two different types of sedimentary rock (layers) from this kind of scenario.The sediments are slow in their forming, but can be moved around quite rapidly before they mineralize (is that the right term?)Can anyone out there care to tell me if I am barking up the right tree on this?

The mississippi spews out a whole load of sediment, but I don't think its all from one mountain chain. Check out how much . All those miles of river bed sediment come with it.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 12-March-2006 10:48 PM

couldn't tell you to be honest, I'd google around and see what I can come up with, but I'm about to AFK (watch this space).I was just saying that it isn't just mountains that are getting eroded, in many cases, hundreds or even thousands of miles of land are being eroded by the river too.

I think the impression that Faith has got is that sediments can be deposited up to kilometres deep, but the reason why the strata seems only a few feet thick in many places is because these kilometre deep sediment deposits have been eroded away.