You are writing nonsense, because you are not actually reading the responses given.
You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.
Read
Call for Submissions
These are not stories, these are scientific facts.
"
So the fossils tell us that the rock layers that now contain the fossils were not always rock;"
Therefore, Genesis? Can't decide whether to laugh or shake my head at your line of "reasoning" here. Let's take a look at a couple of your evidence-free assertions and break them down to see if they are "scientific facts" - things I've made
red are non-sequiturs or loaded phrases, or not in evidence:
"So the fossils tell us that the rock layers that now contain the fossils were not always rock; rather, most rock containing fossils used to be sediment that quickly covered a vast number of organic things, and so, formed various types of fossils within the rock layers. And this was worldwide."
You are engaging in a sort of bait-and-switch - you start with something noncontroversial:
"So the fossils tell us that the rock layers that now contain the fossils were not always rock;"
then add baggage that does not follow/for which you present no evidence:
"that quickly covered a vast number of organic things"
and then you use this to imply a conclusion:
"this was worldwide"
Was it? While I am sure that the process you describe (though the 'vast number of organic things' needs to be clarified) is 'world wide', the obvious implication that you are making ('worldwide all at once in the Noah flood') is not the same thing, and for which there is no evidence.
Which is ironic - for decades, creationists argued AGAINST the 'universal' geologic column at every turn, trying to undermine the standard geology/geologic timescale/etc., all the while not understanding how desperately they NEED for there to be a consistent, world-wide geologic column showing unbroken uniformity. Poor creationists, never thinking their claims through...
Naturally the more simple life forms, are less mobile, and they sink when dead, would normally be covered by sediment first. Then aquatic life, which naturally survive in water, will be covered by sediment second. The less mobile a creature is, the more likely that creature will be covered in sediment sooner, while the more complex and mobile creatures will be able to escape the flood more readily, and will also float when dead, allowing them to escape being quickly buried in sediment until later, if at all.
Surely, you do not think this is "scientific fact'? I mean, this is just paraphrasing racist kook Henry Morris' claims, which are handily debunked and have been so for decades.
Let's take a look at the child-like silliness of some of this:
Naturally the more simple life forms, are less mobile, and they sink when dead, would normally be covered by sediment first.
Do you consider insects 'simple life forms'? Because, you know, a lot of them float. And fly. And dig. Or is this specifically referring to things like molluscs? Or maybe like algae? Because some of them are motile. You'll have to be more explicit.
Then aquatic life, which naturally survive in water, will be covered by sediment second.
Why would aquatic life be "covered by sediment"? Couldn't they, you know, swim to avoid it?
The less mobile a creature is, the more likely that creature will be covered in sediment sooner,
OK. This covers marine and lake-dwelling molluscs and such. Yet... The fossil record shows strata with such critters... underneath other layers with other such critters in it. Why aren't ALL such critters found in the exact same stratum? How could they not all be in the same stratum if what you say has any merit at all?
My first year in graduate school, I attended a lecture by SJ Gould. The topic was 'the rise of creationism in America.' He went through Morris' hydrodynamic sorting thing (which you seem to have bought into), and said something like
'If you know a little science, this seems to make sense. If you know a lot of science, you can see it for the nonsense it is.' He then spent some time explaining how this notion of 'sorting' due to lifestyle/hydrodynamics did not actually fit the actual patterns we see in the fossils record. I guess you haven't gotten to that part of your studies, yet?
The less mobile a creature is, the more likely that creature will be covered in sediment sooner, while the more complex and mobile creatures will be able to escape the flood more readily,
So, what about turtles? And sloths? They should WAY down in the fossil record, just above clams and such, right? But wait, they are pretty complex... And so are fish - why would they be covered earlier, again? Oh, right - they don't float when dead.
and will also float when dead, allowing them to escape being quickly buried in sediment until later, if at all.
So there should be zero
bird fossils, right? And what about bipedal dinosaurs? Shouldn't they have been able to sprint uphill away from the flood waters?
Just one more:
Many of the rock formations we now see today were, therefore, not formed from eroding solid rock over millions of years,
Never been to the Grand Canyon, I take it? You can actually see the erosive processes going on, even though the Colorado River is a shadow of its former self. Went there about 20 years ago. Clearly saw an area where water had eroded away the 'base' of a rockface as it rounded a bend. The rockface above that had a visible fracture, leading from the area of resulting overhang (whatever geologists call it) up to surface. It has probably fallen off by now. Just downstream from that site, I saw the remains of a previous such event - a big slab of rock laid partially into the running water, having fallen off the cliff face. It was broken into several large pieces, with a bunch of smaller and smaller rocks all around it. The water was already running through the cracks, and on the downstream side, I could see mounds of smaller pieces forming a 'fan' outward from these cracks. Erosion in action, widening the GC as we speak.
But I digress...
but rather, softer sediment layers quickly eroded into the huge rock formations we see today, that have hardened over time.
Right. Because of the 'little Grand Canyon'. Imagine 50-foot+ tall wet mud canyon walls just standing there for centuries as they lithify. What force holds up these multi-million ton walls of mud? Who can say, for such things have never been seen or inferred.
And this erosion was on a massive scale, because we know the earth went through environmental changes after the flood causing huge storms. The fossil record within the rock layers proves this to be the case.
Does it? How so? You see what you did here? You engaged in the fallacy of begging the question.
I think that is enough. You presented some relatively uncontroversial 'scientific facts', then added all manner of unwarranted baggage and things that are definitely NOT scientific facts, but want us all to think that entire litany of gibberish consists of 'scientific facts.'
Not wasting my time breaking down the rest - and I suspect you are happy that I am not, for it shows how shallow and naïve you've been in presenting what you desperately need to be "facts", and are anything but.
