I believe modern geologists, in finding so many unbroken folded strata have again given an alternate explanation--because the deluge cannot be included by rule. What a travesty. What if there was a deluge Geode? Are we going to say everything has another explanation because the Bible is a religious book--therefore it can not be true? It is not the only ancient source that tells of a deluge.
So just what is unbroken folded strata and how common is this occurrence compared to "broken" strata? The deluge is open for consideration, it is just that the evidence is not present. There is evidence of local flooding events and these are interpreted all the time by geologists. But please, you already covered this earlier in your post, it is redundant, and it is off the topic we were discussing. Having to break this reply into two parts is a result of your bringing up a multitude of off-subject remarks.
Do we say because we don't know the mechanism of the deluge that it is therefore impossible? Think for instance if you discovered an empty hull of an alien spacecraft. All the inner workings had been removed and you only had the hull. WOuld you be able to scientifically say how this spacecraft arrived on earth. By what propulsion and navigation system? But you know it arrived because it is on earth. In the same way, we have to look at the amount of evidence of catastrophe is in the rocks, not rule something out before we even consider it, because we BELIEVE it to be impossible.
Yes, we do have to look at all the evidence in the rocks. When done there is not evidence of a worldwide flood. It is creationists that rule out all but one possibility.
"Geologists do not rely upon intuitive assumptions when they have hard data. It has not been taught in geology that successive strata have been laid down vertically one at a time."
I didn't mean vertical like the stratum is vertical. I meant they were laid horizontally, but vertically as in a time sequence, one on top of another. And it seems you are escaping the fact that many people understand things like laminations and varves to be indications of slow sedimentation followed by a period of inactivity. Most people do not even know it is possible for multiple laminations to occur in a current of water.
As described by you know the Law of Superposition will always hold true, as it did in the experiment.
But most people are not sedimentologists. Most, but not all laminations in rocks are evidence of slow sedimentation. But why should most people know this or care about this? It is specialized study.
"The law was not put in doubt by the hydaulic engineer, because he does not really address the law in the way he measured his points, as I have pointed out already."
I have to disagree. It seems that what the average citizen who swallows old earth teaching has no idea that it's possible to form multiple strata and or laminations concurrently by moving water. Most people believe everything happened slow, slow, and that each strata formed one at a time. This is the idea that is conveyed by uniformintarianism. Are you going to disclaim that also.
In my opinion, if geologists know what you say--then they are doing a horrible job of communicating their knowledge.
The average person is not a geologist, let alone a sedimentologist. It was my specialization in graduate study in geology. Most people don't think about such things. But you ignored my real point in the quote and once again seem to want to deflect the discussion off-track.
Geologists do just fine in communicating to the community that is interested in such things, other geologists. The general public is not interested as a rule, and usually have trouble grasping its principles. I think this has been demonstrated in quite a few places in this thread. I have found that most people are bored by such discussions.
"Once aqain I ask you, did you bother to do as I suggest and measure the sediments as modern geologists do ? As Steno would have done ? I think I have answered all questions put to me yet mine tend to often be avoided."
What sediments are you talking about--in the experiment?
As I have already posted twice in some detail, I was asking if you had done as I had suggested and measured a set of points along a vertical line from the bottom of the sediments to the top as shown in the video. Do this in the pictures they call a "cross-section" or 90 degrees to this in the views that show the current flowing. You can also do it with Julien's diagram. Then assign the order of those points in terms of when they were deposited (which is youngest and which is oldest, which are in-between).