Summations Only

But we aren't in the Pleistocene and there won't be anything after the Holocene.

I think this is apparent in the fact that the time periods are constructed on the upward climb of the strata and there aren't going to be any more strata.

If sedimentation is continuing on the bottom of the ocean it is NOT "continuing upward."

Time can't stop continuing upward and onward of course but sedimentation obviously can and does.

Erosion doesn't do that.

Besides, it's all a lot of guessing you're doing. You've never seen it happen.

I'm pretty sure that you're badly misunderstanding everything. Especially as the last sentence would be better written as "...sedimentation is still continuing in basins, river deltas and the sea, just as it did in the distant past"

There are a lot more New Yorkers in New York than in Dallas. Does that mean you can ignore the New Yorkers that are in Dallas?The fact is that there are burrows and trackways buried in the column. If the whole column was created by the Flood, how did those burrows and trackways get down there?

But there is no way that sedimentation in deltas and basins could possibly account for the huge strata in the Geo Column.

If you want to prove me wrong you are going to have to show me a place where the strata are that complete WITHOUT erosion and distortion after they were all in place but continue to build by placid deposition. I'm betting there is no such place on Planet Earth.

The Time Scale may not have been invented to correspond to the Column but there can't be any doubt that it is associated with it, often illustrated in conjunction with it (certainly in the Grand Canyon area for dramatic instance), and unarguably based on its fossil contents.

That's very clever and probably the only answer that at least superficially challenges what I'm saying. The thing is if a deposition did occur over that formation it would fill in the valleys ...

... and I haven't ever seen an angular unconformity in which the upper layers were anything but straight and flat both top and bottom, have you?

Also the upper layers occur over tightly folded lower layers, I've never seen one form over the kind of base in that diagram, have you?

In theory that could happen but in reality there's no evidence that it ever does that I know of. Perhaps you can find some but I doubt it.

How could a layer of exposed, lithified sediment exist without layers that used to exist on top of it (since it is lithified and all)? If the flood can arrange fossils and sediments, why do some strata columns represent more "complete" timelines, while others seem to skip time creating those "gaps?"

Note the large dip to the right.
Of course all unconformities are examples (I think) in spite of your fantasy of layers rolling around underground and being transported whole and unmarked by a magical water-like-but-doesn't-act-like-water fludde.

So it is not surprising to us that you can't think of a mechanism here.

Look at the top surface of the rightmost of the two angular uncomformities with the Grand Canyon supergroup. The Tapeats and the Bright Angel Shale have both been deposited around the bulge of the Shinumo layer of the supergroup. The layers did not deposit up the sides of the Shinumo because as a prominence on the landscape it would have been an object of net erosion.

Then I think she's referring to the right hand side. She's trying to say that there are no examples of sediments filling in a valley.

Oddly enough, I suppose, I don't start with any such premise, I am truly starting from observation of all those diagrams and pictures I've seen and they fit that scenario.

Eroding the lumpy surface flat enough for deposition to lay down neat horizontal layers that don't have to fill in the valleys is already beyond the possible (and if you can't see valleys in that diagram there's something wrong with your eyes), ...

... and such deposition could only happen by water anyway and where is that going to come from?

Oh I know: in millions of years we can count on ANYTHING we need to satisfy the theory.

Meanwhile we've got, in four diagrams so far (GC-GS, Great Britain cross section, Percy's of the Gulf of Mexico, and this one of Utah) what I've been calling the Geologic Column, all those layers that would have originally been stacked neatly and horizontally, obviously to a great depth in all those examples, probably in all cases even up to the Holocene level though that isn't apparent on this latest one or the one of Great Britain (just because they aren't labeled), still probably very close because that's a LOT of layers represented there. Anyway, four places where there was this original stack of horizontal layers that do customarily get labeled with time periods in the hundreds of millions, and after they are all laid down then and only then are they distorted: eroded, folded, sagging into a salt layer and so on.

There must be more out there. And you all just blithely imagine more layers getting laid down on top of this formation. I find that eyepoppingly ludicrous and don't see why you don't.