Oceanic sediments don't actually span the globe. Sorry to break it to you.
Are you familiar with the principal of superposition?
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Upper_Cretaceous_James_Ross_Island_Antarctica
Here's a nice article on some of the geology of Antarctica, and what we actually see are exposure of terrestrial rocks in various areas, as evidenced by things like trackways and rootlet complexes and other forms of ichnofossils, And also we see the presence of paleosols, which, in soil sciences include things like the O Horizon, A B, and C horizons as well.
Are you familiar with sedimentary soil horizons?
This is very important to understand, so that you can see why these aren't flood deposits, they're very different, they are terrestrial paleosols. And just to make it logically obvious, they have animal track ways on them, meaning that they are in fact dry ground that animals walked across. Ichnofossils throughout the geologic record contain things like nests and complex root networks and complex burrow networks, and large vertebrate burrows, and feeding trace marks from animals that are eating such as birds pecking at plants along the ground etc. In combination with tree rootlets and mud cracks and paleosols, We can tell the difference between strata that was once terrestrial versus strata that is from a flood.
And this is very important to understand. You have to be able to differentiate between marine strata and terrestrial strata if you want to understand earth history.
And so to go back to my original post, in some instances we do have large spans of space covered by oceanic trans and regressive sequences as described in my prior post. But this is a long shot from saying that the Earth is covered by flood deposits. Just as we have giant continental shelves with sub water deposition accumulation that span thousands of miles around the United states, but this is not the same as saying that the entire United States is underwater.
And the easiest way to understand this concept is to look at actual geologic maps so that you can see what is or is not present.
I'd recommend downloading the RockD app, it's free and can show you the geology of your area.
If someone tells you that the Earth is covered by flood deposits, I would simply say that there is no geologic map in existence that would ever suggests such a thing. It's just a baseless claim. As evidenced by the article above that includes maps noting things like ichno fossils, paleosols, rootlets and more that demonstrate a terrestrial origin, not marine or flood related.
And there's no elephant in the room, it's just a matter of being familiar with geologic maps.
So here's another issue with the idea of global flood deposits accounting for the strategic record, And in particular this Antarctic Forest that you are describing:
So we can imagine all precambrian strata, then overlayed by Cambrian, then overlayed by ordovician, then by Silurian, then by Devonian strata. Then you have this forest. And then eventually you get to things like the Permian and the Mesozoic and Cenozoic etc.
If a forest grew in the carboniferous, How could that be possible if the flood were responsible for early Paleozoic and late and post Paleozoic strata (both before and after the carboniferous)?
And actually I believe these forests that you're describing are mesozoic, which is even worse but I'm going to go with carboniferous because you mentioned coal seams.
It would be like making a sandwich where you have it piece of bread on the bottom and then you have your meat patty, and then your cheese on top of that and then lettuce on top of that, And then tomato on top of that and then bread at the very top. But right in between the meat and the cheese you have evidence of time passing through the growth of some kind of flower on the meat patty.
Well if you put the sandwich together in the matter of 5 minutes, how in the world would a flower grow on the meat patty? How would it have time to grow, and wouldn't the cheese smother the flower and prevent it from getting sunlight?
The same question could be asked in geology, if you have thousands and thousands of feet of stratigraphy below the forest and thousands and thousands above, If all of it were allegedly deposited by some epic flood that spanned the entire planet, why would there be a forest right in the middle of this stratigraphic "sandwich"? Did the tree seeds just land somewhere on a random island and then the entire forest grew and then decades later after the forest grew, massive waters returned to covered them again and somehow buried it all without destroying them? How would that make any sense? Like the flood went away then just randomly came back decades later to finish the job via deposition of the entire Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras.
But it actually gets worse when you realize that things like rootlet structures and ichnofossil track ways, and paleosols, and things of the like are actually found in every single geologic period throughout all of earth history. We can find evidence of buried forests throughout every single period of time. Suggesting that throughout all of Earth history, there on earth were always places that were dry where life was growing forests and walking around and living.
And this doesn't really make sense in a young earth where a flood is responsible for all stratigraphy because it runs contrary to the idea of a flood rendering all life extinct.
It would be like having evidence of a flower growing in between every single layer of your sandwich. How slowly would you have to make a sandwich in order for a flower to grow in between the bun and the meat and the meat and the cheese and the cheese and the lettuce and the lettuce and tomato and the tomato and the overlying bread?
But that's what we see in geology, just on a much much bigger scale where instead of a flower it's entire forests and trackways of animals and burrows and evidence of predation and nests with eggs and expansive burrow networks by slow moving mega sloths and things of the like that would take long expanses of time. Yet these things can be found in every period of stratigraphy, in combination with things like soil A, B, and C horizons as paleosols.
But it gets even worse when we actually start looking at some of the structural features as well. It gets really really ugly for flood advocates the more we actually discuss the topic and the more we dive in. For AiG, less detail is better. But for geologists, more detail is better. So let's see how deep we can go.
Things like slickenlines and fault breccias and evidence that deposition is a product of orogensis.
Imagine taking a piece of chalk and rubbing it on the sidewalk outside and it makes a streak. Now this activity can only be done if the chalk is a solid mass and the sidewalk is a solid mass, otherwise particles would roll and you wouldn't have a streak.
Well in geology, throughout the rock record we have evidence of hard bodies of rocks scraping past one another. Suggesting that these rocks were lithified and underwent brittle deformation prior to the deposition of undeformed overlying sediment. This is evidenced in things called angular uncomformities such as Hutton's Siccar Point (Google it).
If you understand what I'm saying here, it's a complete nightmare for young earthers. But most of them aren't really familiar with geology enough to understand what I'm saying, unfortunately.
Meaning that not only are there hypothetical forest growing right in the middle of a global flood, but there's also evidence of dense solid rock right in the middle of this flood too. Which is problematic if this dense rock was allegedly also deposited as soft sediment by a flood. It simply doesn't make any sense because how could a flood deposit hardstone with forests on it?
Reminds me of the fossil grove site in Glasgow (Google images of it).