Geological strata are emperical data, but how they formed is based on an assumption. If you want to show that the formation took place over millions of years, you would need millions of years to perform each experiment.
That argument can equally be applied to young earth, you would need 1000â€™s years etc.
It has been emerically shown that strata can form very fast, and do not require millions of years. You can read about that again here: In summary, these experiments demonstrate that stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures can result from: segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded-beds, and desiccation for joints. Therefore, superposed strata are not necessarily identical to successive sedimentary layers.
Of course it can, no geologist would deny that some strata can form quickly.
The question is, is there any reason why strata cannot build slowly
? if you cannot provide a reason why, then the only question remaining is how to tell the difference
between strata that formed rapidly and strata that formed slowly. Do you agree so far?
So, given that there are two possibilities, neither of which the geologist would know until he examined any particular strata, why would there be any assumptions? Lets say he was blindfolded and taken to Mt St Helens, given a shovel and told to dig, do you think he would come to any other conclusion other than, rapid burial caused by a volcanic eruption?
Re the article from AiG, seems to me they have artificially created a â€˜conglomerateâ€™, a naturally occurring phenomena under the right conditions, I am inclined to ask what exactly they think they have proved.