Long build up of Sediments

Faith,You have been making this claim of absurdity repeatedly. What evidence do you have that the rates of accumulation are faster than the current theories explanation? Simply putting the "is" in capitals doesn't establish the case "IS" absurd at all.Intuitively light should move faster from a rapidly moving source but turns out intuition is wrong. So aside from your intuition about how much material should be deposited what measured evidence do you have that materials are deposited at rates that would have the depth of layers be greater than we find them?lfen

Faith,My apologies on not getting back to your reply sooner. I've been having some serious computer hard drive problems. I'm temporarily running on an old obnoxiously noisey HD as I try and decide where to go (I'm hoping to put off purchase of a new system for about a year to allow me to evaluate Windows Vista and it's requirements and impact on computing).Geology is not a major interest of mine and it seems like other folks are doing a better job than I could do so I won't say much. Your objections are understandable but I believe if you explored the literature you would find them addressed.For example: My understanding is that fossilization is indeed as you observed not favored. Fossil result from unusual circumstances where an animal dies in an environment that results in quick burial such as rapidly silting river bends.As to the changes in strata I thought that reflected whether the area was underwater or lifted about water or subject to volcanic activity.The history of palentology that I'm familiar with, though it's been many years, was that the initial discoveries of fossil were hailed as the result of the flood. But as more exploration was made that hypothesis couldn't be supported.But I'll bow out of this discussion as I go back to fussying with this computer.lfen