Summations Only

Three questions Faith.
1. How does a layer of sediment turn to rock?
2. How long does it take?
3. Why does a huge cataract of water in cracked rock produce such marked meanders in the GC?
Hint : Wonderly's book may help you with 1 and 2.

Have you heard of cementation? I suggest you check Wikipedia for "Cementation (Geology)". But I guess you had better check the Christian status of the author before reading it.

I apologise if I came across as snarky. The Wikipedia article explains how your rock-forming process is not the way it actually happens. It mentions millions of years so that will not be acceptable to you. Wonderly goes into more detail in how the chemical processes actually bind the grains of sediment to form rock. You or I imagining a process does not replace the careful study of generations of geologists.

Adding to tanypteryx's question, which relates to plate tectonics, could we have an indication when the plates started to move, for how long, and how fast? Also an indication of what the vulcanism was like. We have tens if not hundreds of millions of cubic kilometres of volcanic products and tens of millions of square kilometres of oceanic crust to be produced and some subducted, along with countless seamounts. That of course is before we consider the way radiometric dates are consistent with ocean floor and seamount travel times at current rates of movement.

I have given Faith a cheer because her replies are getting so bad they are good!
Her respondents have been patient and clear in trying to explain the GC, though they probably have headaches from bashing their heads against their computers She should respond to Atheos caladensis's posts 386 and 390 and say just what parts of the explanations she does not understand.

Faith makes it abundantly clear that FAITH is all she has in this discussion.
The Seventh-day Adventist church set up the Geoscience Research Institute to find evidence for YEC and the Flood. In 2010 the GRI reported to the General Conference session of the church (held every five years) that after 50 years of trying they could not produce a model of YEC and Flood that explained the evidence. Faith is unlikely to do much better!

Faith has been concentrating on her inability to believe that the layers of rocks in the GC are old. Perhaps we should address the evidence for saying they are old. If the evidence is solid, then the flatness or apparent flatness of the layers has to be fitted in with that.
Briefly, (and I am sure there are others here better qualified than I am to explain it) the ORDER of the geological layers was worked out by observation nearly 200 years ago, by the early geologists who were mostly expecting to see evidence of recent Creation and the Flood, and were honest enough to admit their findings did not support YEC. They noted that always you found the same sets of fossils under those you found also above them elsewhere. They did not know the exact ages, but knew it had to be orders of magnitude above 6000 years.Last century, radiometric dating became available and so dates were able to be assigned to the various fossil groupings. The validity of RM dating is supported by findings such as the dates of the Hawaiian-Emperor sea mounts being consistent with current rates of movement of the Pacific plate, ditto the age of sea floor related to distance from the mid-oceanic ridges. Thus fossils can be used to assign dates to rocks of a newly studied formation because they have been dated from elsewhere (not the circular reasoning stayed sometimes by YEC).
So Faith needs to attack the validity of RM dating, then can get back to laying down the Flood layers.Having previously been YEC myself, I have looked extensively at age of Earth issues, and found there is a mountain of support for standard long age teaching.
I add here the evidence I have found for YEC : .

Yes, she thinks she has evidence of a Flood, and ignores the FLOOD of evidence against it.

Faith, you accept that there have been vast tectonic plate movements on the Earth. You have suggested a speed of 20 feet per day, but that is way way too slow to open the Atlantic before recorded history. So you need to give us a speed and time for it to happen. Remember it also has to take into account the vulcanism generating the new oceanic crust as well as a great amount of the other vulcanism on the Earth.
You reject standard geologic dating. Do you understand how the dates are derived?

20 feet per day takes at least 1000 years to open the Atlantic. The plates can not have been moving that fast for that long or Abraham would have noticed the daily earthquakes. For that matter, they would not have been able to get any of the Tower of Babel up before it would be knocked down.You have to get your rapid movement out of the way before any recorded history. For now, I'll ignore the fact that history starts before your time for the Flood. Even at 20 feet per day, you would have at least 1000 years worth of current quakes every day.
Can't you see a wee problem with your scenario? And you still have to factor in the vulcanism.
Repeating an above question, do you understand how geological ages are determined?

After re-reading your post, you don't think that the plates move at a few inches per DAY do you?

Tectonic plate movement affects the whole globe, not just the Atlantic. So you have to slow the movement before there are a lot of people to notice, because there is nothing to suggest that there is a marked difference in earthquake frequency in recorded history. 20 feet per day with it already slowed by Abe's time means you still need feet per day and he would have noticed.
The seamount chains I have mentioned in the other thread have to be built by then also so that is why I say you have to consider the vulcanism your scenario produces.
Do you understand how geologic ages are determined?

I think the main reason for continuing to engage with Faith, Mindspawn et al is for people such as I was, those who are seeking answers and who will appreciate being shown facts. (Not that I no longer seek answers to anything, but my questions on age of Earth issues are pretty well settled).

Hi roxrcool,
You testiness is understandable. To have someone tell you that what you do for a living is virtually a fraud is insulting. In the last couple of years I have been reading some Geology and am developing an understanding of how much can be learned from a detailed study of the minerals in a rock. Faith is like someone telling a doctor that you can know from looking at a patient across the room more than with a detailed history, examination, and investigations.
I have to disagree with you on one thing. You said she has an incurious mindset. I think the set of her mind is indeed very curious!

RAZD got my drift. I don't disagree with the intent of roxrcool's statement.