That's not what I'm trying to find out. The KTB appears to be worldwide. The sedimentary layers just below it and just above it could be worldwide, too.
Seems very unlikely, although there are layers just above with a lot of soot, presumably from the fires that accompanied the meteor strike.
Perhaps they are not. If they are not, how big are the patches above and below the KTB. How many different patches of layers are there and where do they sit in relation to the KTB. Thickness is a component, but the "vastness" is directly what I'm looking for.
My guess is that it's going to be more uniform above, than below. And no, it's not uniform everywhere. The Deccan traps, for example, involve a huge, subcontinent-wide release of magma over huge areas. It seems to have occurred either shortly before, or shortly after the strike. And it occurred roughly on the other side of the world. It's tempting to think that they might be related, although I don't know enough about it to say for sure.
Barbarian
Barbarian on 'hydrologic sorting':
So explain how you think it would be different, and how we can test that idea.
If you're right about hydrologic sorting (whatever that is) being the difference between fossils found at different levels, explain how it works, and what you would predict seeing at different levels. How can we test the idea
I know that the software engineers that spoke at our college described the great difficulties in getting their fluid dynamics programs to work. Hydraulic sorting was one of the problems they had to deal with because different things acted differently not only in fluid, but the temperature and the density of the fluid itself changed what problems one would run into trying to predict/interpret what the fluid was doing and what the sensors were really seeing. The question is not "does hydraulic sorting exist", the question is how does fluid move what things in what way. I don't think the problem has been modeled for a worldwide flood, but I think in time it can be figured out, or at least a good amount of it can be figured out.
That's a somewhat more sophisticated outlook than the one the ICR presents. They claimed that the sorting of fossils could be explained by their shapes. I'm sure if you thought about it for a minute, you can see why that argument falls apart.
I'll be interested to see what you come up with, under your approach.'
Barbarian asks:
It's your idea. You don't know? Explain how we would be able to test it. What will be the difference between lower and upper layers?
I'll make the prediction that the difference in the fossils between the upper and lower layers is because of hydraulic sorting in the context of a worldwide flood.
Give me a testable claim for the way they'd be different. When you have that, you can make a scientific prediction.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, when the evidence was discovered, almost everyone went over to the Heliocentric model. Although the civil authorities wanted Copernicus's books edited, most of them were not. By Galileo's time, people knew. He merely put the finishing touches on the theory.
Scientists agreed with him. BTW, you might want to check out the history; he was actually encouraged by the Pope to work on the theory. He was actually arrested on a trumped-up charge for political reasons. That was a convenient way to get him.
Ya, I know. That's the point. If you were going to get a grant from civil authorities you weren't going to get it having a Heliocentric model.
Actually, he did. The Pope, as you might know, was also civil ruler at the time.
So, to keep a job, you worked on whatever you were going to work on and you didn't make waves about the model.
Most people didn't work on grants. They were either rich, like Galileo and Tycho, or they were academics, who had university resources.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. Just show us the evidence. You're back to the "evil scientific conspiracy" stuff again. If you have no evidence for your beliefs, surely you can see that people aren't going to believe them.
Why not just admit you don't have any evidence?
So far, no evidence. You suggested "hydrologic sorting", but when I ask a few questions, you either don't know what it means, or you're remarkably shy about telling us.
Ah, you'd like to support your argument with facts, but the Evil Barbarian won't let you. Very handy.
But you won't show any of it to us. Whatta surprise.
Nothing that drastic. There is already plenty of evidence for ooparts. But I'm not a scientist, so it isn't that you stop me from presenting any, it's just that you personally wouldn't accept any from me even if it were valid.
It seems completely backwards to have evidence, but refuse to show it. I'm used to creationists dismissing evidence out of hand, but it doesn't stop me from showing it to them.
I figure if they have even a portion of a working mind, they will be able to see what it says.
Barbarian
You think a lot of things that are pretty weird. This is hardly the strangest one.
We'll see. I'd be willing to bet that the sedimentary layers are vast, with a number of them continent sized.
Can't think of any, but some might be ocean-bottom-sized. I guess the closest would be the loess layers in North America and Eurasia, carried and deposited by glaciers.
And also there will be large (in width, not thickness) layers overlapping with other layers that cover greater distances still.
Hmm... widely spread deposits, unless they aren't, and they will be overlapped with other kinds of layers. I don't think there can be any other kind.
And I'll even go to far as to say we will see folding in every one of these vast layers that is indicative of waterborne sedimental layers.
How would you distinguish "waterborne folding" from the usual kind?
