Your argument from incredulity is that millions of years is way too long. Many here find it hard to believe that the world is 10000yrs old or less, but refuse to use it as the basis of an argument.
The bottoms of some oceans and the deltic basins appear to have existed for a long time. These areas accumulate much more sediment than they lose and are not sitting still. If the ocean recedes then deposition stops and a portion may even erode away, but over the long haul any area that is covered by a sea for most of the time accumulates sediments.
Tectonic movement, over millions of years, may change an area that was for millions of years an ocean into, for instance, a brackish swamp. If this swamp persisted for a fairly long period then it would be later represented as a different layer on top of the previous marine sediment.
The alteration and fossil composition of these layers posed a problem for geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries, who noticed comonalities of strata in different areas when strata maps were compared. These common rock layers compise the geologic column. This concept was accepted by most scientists almost 200 years ago. Most of these scientists were originally creationist or were still subsequently religious. The 20th century brought radiometeric dating which furthur correlated these layers.
Yes, most geologists extrapolate from present day processes...this is uniformitatarian view as opposed to your catastrophist view that things must have been quite different on earth just a few thousand years ago.
And if 50 mil yrs for the Redwall bothers you then the 600+ mil yrs for the whole formation and 4.6 bil yrs for the age of earth must make you very incredulous.
So your objections are the deposition problem and extreme age.
Deposition occurs in some areas at such a rate as to exceed erosion, such as sea beds and deltic fans. That some areas have more deposition than erosion (and therefore sedimentation) has been shown to you in many forms.
It has also been shown that young earth creationists have more inconsistencies to deal with than old earthers, with fossil stratigraphy, radiometric dating, and lack of sufficient time for rock lithification or metamorphasis as just the beginning.
What particular scientific objections do you have to an old earth may be the next question to furthur plumb the depths of your geologic doubts.
I retract my request about the age question unless Faith wishes to pursue it; these threads can get off track soon. I'll just listen to others about the Grand Canyon as I'm still learning about it.
Till then its our old friends erosion,deposition,and sedimentation. Do they occur? Are they important in the rock cycle of an old earth or the unimportant remnants of a young degenerative world? Tune in next time for the thrilling conclusion!
You have mentioned being logical about this subject.
I know you think I need a sophisticated education in geology to think clearly about it but so far it doesn't seem that way to me,
It seems illogical to claim to be able to comment on a subject without learning about it.Actually you need just an unsophisticated education in geology. Some of the respondents here I suspect are like me, with just a freshman course in geology.
I think that your blind adherence to a young earth makes you see erosion and deposition as sideshows...processes that lead nowhere because everything happened a few thousand years ago.
I agree that a GD format is best. Your need to answer all respondents while avoiding a basic education in geology would indicate that having one patient and knowledgable person to spoonfeed you the pertinent details is the best approach.
I'll agree with Crashfrog and sit this out.
"You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"
Thank you for that point by point rebuttal. It was a work well above my ability and patience. The tie in with the lack of a worldwide limestone layer to YEC theory weakness was good. The formation of limestone over thousands of square miles of old ocean beds may start to meet Faith's requirement of 'flat neat layers'.
Good scientists will change their views to accomodated new information and most would not claim to be a final authority.
The appeal of Biblical literalism to some is the certainty that it provides. You don't interpret much and make arguments saying that those who do are imagining or speculating, and thus the your guess is as good as mine tactic.
As to your third point, thing is that a number of people are aware of and have read the positions of a number of prominent creationists. You have mentioned a few but perhaps you can list a few favorites in review. This will make the debunking of the fine reasoning of YEC procede more smoothly.