The supposed aeolian deposits weren't. That's all.
You just admitted they were:
quote:Dry sand fills in tracks in dry sand and they get preserved. Message 69
And those aeolian deposits are sandwiched between layers that you claim were deposited by the same flood. How do you explain a flood layer with and aeolian landscape on top of it and another flood layer on top of that?
I would think that "razor-tight" contacts would require the bottom layer to be hardened before the top layer was deposited. We don't see razor-tight contacts in the peanut butter jar where all of the layers were deposited in one event.
There had to be a period when they were still living, but without their landscape and no new landscape, where would that have been? On top of the sediment you say. How do they survive on mere sediment?
When rivers flood, they leave sediment on the banks and we see animal tracks in that sediment. The animals are living off food in the water and food on the non-flooded land, and they're crossing the sediment to get to the food.
... the idea of some continually livable world is certainly false when you have to keep getting from a life-sustaining environment to a bare flat rock in a stack of bare flat rocks.
You've been shown that it's your notion that's false. There are livable environments right beside those unlivable ones. You are the only one who is imagining that the whole world was unlivable at the same time.
May I ask whether anybody besides me has a problem with the idea of landscapes (whether marine or terrestrial) resolving down to such neat straight tight contacts between strata as shown in those pictures in my post above (Message 711)?
I don't think anybody is suggesting that every one of those layers represents an entire landscape.
Some creationists believe the solar system was involved in the Flood scenario in various ways; for instance meteor impacts are considered to have been part of the Flood period on earth....
And yet the "eyewitnesses" who wrote about the Flood didn't mention them at all - no meteorite impacts, no volcanic eruptions, no zooming tectonic plates, just an ordinary flood on a larger-than-life scale. Your "explanation" of the Flood effects is a totally made-up fantasy that has nothing to do with either science or the Bible.
What is this absurd idea you have that every single detail of every event has to actually BE in the Bible to be authentic?
It would be nice if anything you claim would be consistent with the Bible. The Bible simply does not support your "explanation" of the Flood. You are not a Bible literalist; you're more like a novelist.