I've read your first link, and the writer is either ignorant or lying.
quote:Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks.
Not true in the slightest. Sedimentary rocks, though most common at the surface form a thin veneer on top of mainly igneous rock. 70% of earth's crust was NOT laid down by water.
quote:Sedimentary rock was originally formed in almost all cases under water
There is some truth in this. Much sedimentary rock is formed by water, but this ignores 2 things. The first is the rocks that aren't water deposited. Windblown deposits and glacial deposits also exist, and couldn't be deposited in a flood. The second is just how the water derived deposits are formed. Water does not nessecarily mean flood. To give a couple of examples: there are rocks that seem to have been deposited by river deltas, and a number of times their upper surfaces have been exposed long enough to be colonised by vegetation and resubmerged. This doesn't exactly seem consistent with a flood. Another example is evapourites. These form when water evapourates and the minerals & salts precipitate out, just like if you left a cup of salty water out in the sun. The order in different minerals precipitate is well understood- those that are less soluable first, followed by those that are more soluable. In evapourite sequences we can see repeating sequences of mineral deposition formed as pools of saline water slowly dry up and are then subsequently refilled, then drying again,etc... This doesn't seem to suggest a flood either.
I think you've misunderstood here. I mean really misunderstood. Geology in its entirety, and I'd bet this discovery documentary too (Note that being on the discovery channel does not make it true, even if that is what was said). I can tell you this is the first time I've heard a claim of any global layer of tsunami deposits or ice melt.
no scientist has yet maintained that there was once a global windstorm that carried all the sediment all over the world to the rocks all over the world, then water is how that sediment landed on the rocks all over the world.
You seem to be making two erroneous assumptions here: Firstly, you assume ALL sediment must be deposited by either wind OR water with no compromise. Why do you think that there can be no windblown sediment at all, especially when the evidence is to the contrary? Look at the earth today: You can see vast areas accumulating windblown sediment e.g. dunefields, and vast areas accumulating river and marine sediment e.g. floodplains, deltas and shallow seas. Why not in the past?
Secondly, you assume that one event has to have deposited all of the sedimentary rocks in the world. Why?
So it takes MUCH EFFORT to deny a global flood
Actually, when you study geology in any serious way it becomes incredibly easy based of the fact that none of the evidence we see points to such a flood. Your support of a global flood seems to stem from complete and total ignorance of any geology. Why don't you try picking up a textbook and figure out what geology actually teaches. Until you do, as far as I'm concerned this discussion can get absolutely nowhere.