It is very clear from this statement that you have no background in sedimentology or geology, given that peat and lignite, the precursors to coal, can be found in a number of places globally. Were they more extensive in the Carboniferous? Yes. It is beyond what is doable given vaguely modern-like processes over time? No. Are oil and natural gas deposits actively forming? Also yes. The entire continetal shelves are covered in precursors to shallow marine deposits, just like the ones in {insert almost any coastal area that hasn’t been moving down over time and isn’t exclusively igneous here}.
The shear volume of identifiable strata absolutely demands much, much longer than the description of a Global Flood fabricated by modern advocates of Flood “geology”. There is nothing in the text that implies a global flood over a massive regional one, as has been pointed out over and over and over again.
“Quite small”? They are in every Cenozoic marine deposit that I have worked on. Every single one of the quadrillions of infaunal fossil clams on the planet is a place where bioturbation is evident, as all of them bioturbate.
See above. All infaunal bivalves bioturbate by definiton, therefore, all specimens of them deposited in place or nearly so (which is most of them, since transport would size-sort and/or destroy them) require actual bioturbation.
That is an actual lie, as it confidently attributes agreement with a false statement to me.
That is the raw data itself that I referenced directly–deposits with lots of what looks like beach sand characteristically have shells of taxa that like shoreface areas, and in a given location, have higher 18O levels than those with more silt and shell constituents and taxa that like mid-shelf areas.
Something else was there though–generation after generation of clams, appearing exactly as if they had lived there for decades and died where they now sit, absorbing stable isotopes that take centuries to equalize through the oceans into their shells, and leaving a record of how much water was locked up in glaciers at every time they were alive.
Not when they match up near-perfectly with radiometric dating, global planktonic foraminifera, relative dating of local deposits, sedimentological and ecological analysis of deposit depth range, etc. Also, how do clams that live for 100 years settle, live, die, get endolithics growing in them, and have more shells repeat that process over and over again if this is all occuring quickly. FYI, the way that that age is measured is stable isotopes, given that they are a very good proxy for water temperature.
What I stated is neither more nor less than what a flood model that invokes deposition of much of the stratigraphic column, rapid plate tectonics, and accelerated nuclear decay predicts happened. The other option is deceptive and pointless miracles (or substituting atoms falling apart for getting fried by radiation).
Given that I study sedimentary deposits, I ought to have some idea of what they are like and what was happening when they were deposited. Also, that’s a slander against geologists and paleoecologists.
Given that “real history” in the way that it’s being used here wasn’t really a category yet, and that a lot of church fathers had other interpretations than the one put forward here (instantaneous, unknown day length pre-sun, etc.), no.
Not with plates moving at 30 m/s or so, as rapid plate tectonics demands.
I will not lie and say that I don’t know what I do.
The existence of any large groups that only tolerate one or the other is enough to refute the argument.
Not with rapid plate movement and megatsunamis.