Throughout this thread you have made a number of statments based on misapprehensions because you have no idea about the details. I have listed some of them below.
In addition, the thread is probably confusing for you because there are so many posters and not all of what they post is correct.
Reading quickly over the posts it is clear that the rapid nature of the posting is causing you to miss many points. In some cases it appears that you are ignoring them. Because you don't get what is being posted you continue with the same misapprehensions.
This section are comments of yours that result from not understanding the details
was faster or slower in one portion of it than another I have no idea how you would tell that,
Message 8
but also I'm not prepared to discuss coral reefs
Message 17
and layers of only one kind of sediment at a time
Message 29
And these processes are supposed to account for the observed ABRUPT changes from one
sediment to another just along the line somewhere in those hundreds of millions of years? Give me a break.
To account for the sharp demarcations between the different sediments (evident all over the southwest and in any photo of the layers anywhere)
You want me to believe that the deposition of one kind of sediment came to a screeching halt and was immediately followed by the deposition of some other kind of sediment as a result of mountain building etc.
It also raises the question in my mind how just that one and only sediment COULD have characterized so exclusively a period of many millions of years, 50 to 100 million perhaps.
Message 55
and how just one kind of sediment could characterize such a long period of time.
Message 64
KILOMETERS of depth of ONE kind of sediment?
Message 65
that's a prodigious AMOUNT of stuff, and ALL ONE KIND of sediment yet (which is clearly shown by all the diagrams that associate one kind of sediment with one time period of scores of millions of years),
Message 69
Would you get just one kind of sediment topped by another kind of sediment -- like those seen in the Southwest, say, etc?
Message 90
given wrong information
Message 98 edges kilometers of
thickness is wrong. Horizontal extent yes. Corrected in
Message 102
ignored
This section has some big points made that you never responded to.
Here's something to think about, Faith: If we accept, as you argued yesterday, that the global Flood was only 15 cubits (~7 meters) deep, how could it have deposited sedimentary layers several kilometers thick? Please address this, as I would be very interested in hearing an explanation for this.
Message 39
Message 120
Message 123
Message 41
Message 45
The overall impression I am left with is exempified by these:
I acknowledge that there are problems for the flood model
Message 33
Some yet-to-be understood phenomenon explains it I'm sure.
Message 17
™ Version 4.2