Refpunk writes:
You put those definitions together...
You don't really want to combine those definitions. The first definition, "Material that settles to the bottom of a liquid," is what gathers at the bottom of your glass of fresh squeezed orange juice.
The second definition, "Solid fragments of inorganic or organic material that come from the weathering of rock and are carried and
deposited by wind, water, or ice," is the one from geology and is the one you want to use in this discussion.
The sediment that settled to the bottom of water was thus carried to rocks by water or wind.
Yes, absolutely correct. Scientists believe that sedimentary layers in the past formed the same way they do today. The products of erosion in upland regions are carried to lowland regions, and to ponds, lakes and seas, by wind, rain, streams and rivers. Sedimentary layers can accumulate to great depths, such as happens at the mouths of mighty rivers like the Mississippi, where the sediment depth is several miles.
The differences in sedimentary layers are due to differences in the products of erosion. For example, if a mountain range consisting largely of granite were located near a shallow sea, then the sediments that collect in the shallow sea would include eroded granite. On the other hand, if the region were largely desert, then the nearby sea would receive primarily sandy sediments. Because regions change over time, the type of sediments that are deposited also change over time, and that's why sedimentary rock appears in layers of different appearance, oftentimes strikingly so.
This is what scientists actually believe about the formation of sedimentary deposits. They do not believe they were formed by a worldwide tsunami or a giant ice melt. Keep in mind that such events would be hugely catastrophic, and while scientists understand that catastrophes do contribute to world geology, the evidence of the sedimentary layers indicates that in most cases they were deposited gradually over long periods of time, in pretty much the same way as we see happening today.
So it takes MUCH EFFORT to deny a global flood...
Scientists don't so much deny a global flood as formulate theories around existing evidence. The evidence of the geological layers, fossils, magnetic reversals, sea floor striping and radiometric dating all pretty much rules out the possibility of a global flood as responsible for world geology.
--Percy