"The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

What features would a geologic layer need in order to be inconsistent with rapid deposition in your model?If you are going to claim that a layer was rapidly deposited no matter what features it has, then you have no evidence. You simply have dogma.

As we have already seen, there is no evidence that we could ever show you that would not point to your conclusion because your theory is not falsifiable. For example, we have this graph that shows settling rates for various grain sizes: The smaller the grain size the slower it settles out. This is a physical law. There simply is not enough time for things like extremely fine grained slates and silts to settle out in a rapid fashion. It is physically impossible. Does that stop you from just blindingly going into a rage and claiming that these things can settle out quickly against all laws of physics? Nope, you blindly rage ahead and flatly claim that it supports your theory with absolutely no explanation as to how it actually supports your theory.In the end, all you have is bluster.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

1. What could this supposed global flood NOT do? What features would a geologic formation need in order to be inconsistent with your model?2. What criteria do you use to determine if a geologic column was produced rapidly by a recent global flood?3. What features would a geologic column or feature need in order to evidence long periods of deposition, according to your model?

We observe straight and flat deposits being made right now without any global flood without any rapid deposition. Your model has been falsified. Here is the feature that falsifies your model: Your model has been falsified twice now.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Because that is what happens when sediments settle out of water, they produce flat sediments. The finer the particles the longer it takes to settle out.We also have modern sand dunes that produce the exact features seen in features like the Coconino sandstones:

70% of the Earth is currently seeing this type of deposition. Why is it pathetic? Do you have more than just bluster? I just showed you a geologic formation that directly contradicts your claims. All you seem to have is denial.

That's because they were a block of sediments prior to tectonic forces shaping them. Why do they have to be damp in order to deform?Added in edit:You can also find fossils that are deformed by tectonic activity, such as fossil seashells.
Just a moment...Unless you think seashells are made up of damp mud, you can't claim that rocks have to be mud in order to bend.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Why not? Lithified rock is malleable, so I don't see what the problem is. Also, why do they have to be of the same age? You don't explain this.

Why would you expect that? You never seem to explain this.Let's say we have a low lying basin filled with water. For millions of years there is sedimentation which produces multiple layers over millions of years. Once those many layers have formed there is a change in tectonic activity that uplifts and deforms those sediments which have now lithified. Due to the fact that they are uplifted they will no longer be part of a low lying basin and will no longer collect new sediments. This results in a single block of sediments that formed over millions of years that are all deformed together.

Sediments are being laid down flat and horizontal on 70% of the Earth's surface right now. That is how water lays down sediments. Denying facts isn't helping your argument.

Where is the evidence to back this claim?

You have never SHOWN this. All you do is stomp your feet like a 1st grader and insist that no new sediments are being laid down.Where do you think eroded sediments go? Do they float up into space? And now you are back to stomping your feet like a 1st grader. What next? Threaten to hold your breath?

Here is a picture of ongoing creation of sediments on top of the existing geologic column in the Mississippi river delta: Here is a picture of the Ganges river delta that also has ongoing and massive creation of new sediments on top of the existing geologic column (light brown sediment just off of coast): Here is the remnants of the Colorado river delta before those crazy Californians took all the water: Here is the Selenga river delta in Asia: How can anyone claim that new sediments are not being created on top of the existing geologic column right now in modern times? These are just a handful of the numerous river deltas that are producing sediments right now. In fact, they are a massive infrastructure problem for many ports because sediments have to continually dredged as they build up.

That takes me back to a family trip where we visited the Mt. St. Helens visitor center. Being a kid who grew up in the 80's in the Pacific NW, no road trip was complete without checking the area out. In the visitor center they had a collection of jars with ash arranged by their distance from the eruption. Sure enough, as you moved away from the eruption the grains were smaller and smaller and smaller. Out of all the things I saw there, that is the one thing that stuck with me for some strange reason. It seems that my path as a scientist started at a young age.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Speaking of Mt. St. Helens . . .Lahars are another example of modern sediments. Not only is this deposition ongoing as volcanoes continue to erupt over time, but it creates flat sediments: As you can see, nice flat deposition well off into the distance and a polystrate house too boot. This modern deposit is now part of the geologic column.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.