... unlike the expertise required to fly a 747, one would think the geology professionals would want the average person to have access to such basic data.
The geology professionals are busy doing geology just like the aviation professionals are busy doing aviation. They don't have much interest in dumbing down their expertise for you just so you can tell them they're wrong.
Science is regularly presented to the public. No reason whatever that the fossil record wouldn't be also, at least comprehensive digests of the whole panorama of information rather than the bits and pieces we usually get.
As a creationist, comprehensive information is not your friend. The deeper you dig, the harder it is to get out of the hole.
And the bizarre irony of it is you complaining that the information that will sink your boat is not accessible enough.
But wouldn't that require the earth to have been much smaller in diameter in the past than it is now?
No. Of course not. Where would the extra material have come from?
There's erosion happening at some places - e.g. mountaintops - and deposition happening at other places - e.g. valleys - at the same time. The mountains are flattened, the valleys are filled and - also at the same time - tectonic forces are building new mountains.
... I believe the early earth grew by accretion of materials supplied by asteroids, such as the one that produced the crater in the Gulf of Mexico.
The earth grows a very small amount because of the occasional asteroid and much more frequent meteorites. It also shrinks from various causes. I don't know if there is a net growth or a net shrinkage but in either case the amount is very small and can not account for the vast majority of the earth's mass.
Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
THE strata is of course a different thing from strata formed in a peanut butter jar.
One of the differences is that the strata out in the real world are not all laid down in one water-related event like in the peanut butter jar. There's a water event followed by a volcanic event followed by another water event followed by an Aeolian event and so on.
There is no way that all of those strata can be explained by one event. Your Flood can not explain the sorting of the fossils in the water events and it can not explain the non-water events between the water events. Those fossils have to represent organisms that were living peacefully on land during your supposed Flood.
You listed a lack of fossils in this particular area which turns out to be Precambrian, in other words the lowest rocks, in which there are normally few fossils, which ought not to be at all amazing to you.
I presume that in your scenario the Precambrian would represent the "bottom" of the Flood?
If so, why are there no fossils of modern life-forms before the Flood? If fossilization can occur as rapidly as creationists claim, why weren't any cows, whales, etc. fossilized in the several thousand years before the Flood? Why are there none in the Precambrian?
"... and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female....
But not all birds are clean:
quote:Leviticus 11:13-19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
And of course the Bible is also wrong about bats being birds.
Also who knows if the classification of clean and unclean kinds regarding ark numbers was the same as the classification system centuries later when referring to clean and unclean kinds from a dietary perspective. Have you a biblical perspective on this?
As far as I know there's no Biblical reason to think the Bible is consistent.